Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 868 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Vikas Chauhan

2014-07-09

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
Judgment : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they all arise from a judgment, rendered on 30.8.2010, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharmshala, in Sessions Case No.1-P/2004, whereby, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II, read with Section 34 IPC and, in default of payment of fine, they have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The genesis of the case, as comprised in F.I.R. Ext.PW-17/B, lodged, qua the occurrence, whose perusal unfolds the fact that on 20.8.2003 at about 4.45 p.m., the accused were ragging the students outside the Degree College, Palampur. The aforesaid acts were noticed by Ajay Sharma and his companions, Munish Walia and Amit Thakur. When objection was raised by the aforesaid about the ragging of new students by accused Gaurav Sood and Sanjiv Sharma alias Sunny caught hold of Amit Thakur and other co-accused struck a knife on his abdomen. Ajay Sharma and Munish Walia rushed towards Amit Thakur to rescue him, but they were also beaten up. Accused Sachin Pal, who was carrying a Khukari and with it, he had inflicted a stab blow in the stomach of Munish Walia. Ajay Sharma was caught hold by accused Saurav Sood and Vikas Chauhan gave a blow of knife. Owing to the injuries, sustained by the injured, blood started oozing from the wounds of the injured. Accused fled from the spot. The injured were carried to Sub Divisional Hospital, Palampur by some students, who reached the spot. 3. The police was informed about the incident under Ext.PW-7/A by the Doctor, who was on duty in the Hospital. This information was reduced in writing in the roznamcha at 5.30 p.m. on 20.8.2003 and the copy of rapat, is, comprised in Ex.PW-14/A. A police party, consisting of SI Mastan Singh, ASI Mohinder Singh, HC Bhagwan Singh and HHC Bakshi Chand, was dispatched to Sub Divisional Hospital, Palampur. The police moved an application Ext.PW-3/A to the Medical Officer at about 5.35 p.m. to elicit his opinion as to whether the injured persons were capable to make a statement and for issuance of their MLCs. The doctor gave opinion that the injured were fit to make statements. The police moved an application Ext.PW-3/A to the Medical Officer at about 5.35 p.m. to elicit his opinion as to whether the injured persons were capable to make a statement and for issuance of their MLCs. The doctor gave opinion that the injured were fit to make statements. Consequently, statement comprised in Ext.PW-5/A of Ajay Sharma was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and was sent through HHC Bakshi Chand at about 6.10 p.m. to the Police Station for registration of the case and on that basis F.I.R. Ext.PW-17/B was registered. The police visited the spot on 20.8.2003 and spot map comprised, in, Ext.PW-18/A was prepared. On the spot, a cover of Khukhari and piece of chain of the watch were recovered. The aforesaid items were taken into possession under memo Ext.PW- 7/B in the presence of Ashim and Vishal. Sketch of said cover was also prepared which bears Ext.PW-18/B. Accused Saurav Sood was arrested on 21.8.2003 while other co-accused were taken into custody on 22.8.2003. Accused Vikas Chauhan made disclosure statement comprised in Ext.PW-9/A under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in the presence of PW-9 Naresh Sharma and PW-13 Amit Kumar. The knife, with which injuries were caused, concealed in the bushes near KLB College, was got recovered and taken into possession under memo Ext.PW-9/D in the presence of Naresh Sharma and Amit Kumar. Sketch of the knife bears Ext.PW-9/C and site plan is Ext.PW-9/H. Similarly, accused Sachin Pal made a disclosure statement comprised in Ext.PW-9/B under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in the presence of the aforesaid two witnesses, that he has concealed the Khukhari used in the crime at some secret place. He led the police to the spot and got the same recovered under memo Ext.PW-9/F, in, the presence of PW-9 and PW-13. Sketch of Khukhari is comprised in Ext.PW-9/E and site plan is Ext.PW-9/G. Both the weapons are blood smeared. The blood stained clothes of Amit Thakur were given to Madhvi Thakur under memo Ext.PW-8/A in the presence of Sanjay Walia (PW-10) and Subhash Chand. The under-vest was also having cut marks when the same was handed over. Sanjay Walia had produced the blood stained clothes of his brother Munish Walia and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-10/A in the presence of Madhvi Thakur (PW-8) and Subhash Chand. The under-vest was also having cut marks when the same was handed over. Sanjay Walia had produced the blood stained clothes of his brother Munish Walia and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-10/A in the presence of Madhvi Thakur (PW-8) and Subhash Chand. Subhash Chand produced the blood stained clothes of Ajay Sharma and the same were taken into possession under memo PW-10/B in the presence of PW-8 and PW-10. 4. Munish Walia and Ajay Sharma were discharged from the hospital on 22.8.2003 and 23.8.2003, respectively. Both sustained simple injuries with sharp edged weapon and their MLCs are comprised in Ext.PW-3/D and Ext.PW-3/C respectively. The case summary of Ajay Sharma and Munish Waila, when they remained in the Dr.R.P.G.M.C., Dharamshala bear Ext.PW-1/B and Ext.PW-1/C, respectively. Amit Thakur was referred to Dr.R.P.G.M.C., Dharamshala where he was operated upon for his injuries on 21.8.2003. The case summary of Amit Thakur is comprised in Ext.PW-1/A and on his body an incised wound was found over left side of abdomen. On 27.8.2003, Amit Thakur developed Fistula and for which exploration was also done. However, he again developed fistula and was referred to CMC Ludhiana and an intimation qua this was given by the concerned doctor to the S.H.O., Division No.3, Ludhiana, vide letter Ext.PW-2/A. The father of deceased also intimated Police Station, Palampur about the death of his son, which was reduced into writing in Roznamcha, copy whereof is Ext.PW-14/B. Inquest reports, comprised in Ext.PW- 11/A and Ext.PW-11/B were prepared by the police and a police party was sent to CMC, Ludhiana. Photographs of the body of the deceased were taken vide Ext.PW-16/B-1 to Ext.PW-16/B-3, negatives whereof are comprised in Ex. PW-16/B-4 to Ex.PW-16/B-6. The case summary at C.M.C, Ludhiana, is, comprised in Ex.PW-2/B and MLC, is, Ex.PW-2/C. An application Ex. PW-4/A was moved to SMO, C.M.C, Ludhiana for the postmortem of the deceased and postmortem report, is, Ex.PW-4/A, wherein it was opined that death took place owing to septiceamic shock. Body of the deceased was handed over to his father after postmortem under receipt Ex. PW-16/A. The blood stained clothes etc. of the injured were sent for chemical analysis, and, reports of Chemical Analyst are comprised in Ex.PA and Ext.PB, respectively. Before the death of Amit Thakur, his statement, comprised in Ex.PW- 15/A, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., was recorded on 26.8.2003. 5. PW-16/A. The blood stained clothes etc. of the injured were sent for chemical analysis, and, reports of Chemical Analyst are comprised in Ex.PA and Ext.PB, respectively. Before the death of Amit Thakur, his statement, comprised in Ex.PW- 15/A, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., was recorded on 26.8.2003. 5. On conclusion of investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder of Amit Thakur and further caused injuries to Ajay Sharma and Munish Walia. Consequently, given the backdrop of aforesaid narration, a police report in tandem thereof, under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared by the police officials concerned and was presented before the competent Court. The challan was committed by the learned Committal Court to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, who, in turn, assigned the same to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra, at, Dharamshala, for trial of the accused. 6. The accused were charged for theirs having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the learned trial Court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded in which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellants have made three fold submissions before this Court in impeaching and assailing the findings of conviction recorded against the accused persons (a) there being delay in lodging the F.I.R. which has remained unexplained (b) omission of reflection in the MLCs at the time of their preparation by the doctor concerned of the names of the assailants smears with doubt the genesis of the prosecution version (c) omission on the part of the victims/injured to name the assailants to the doctor who subjected them to examination renders the subsequent naming of the accused in the F.I.R. comprised in Ext.PW-17/B to be vulnerable to suspicion. 8. 8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General, with vehemence and fervour, has urged before this Court that the judgment of conviction, recorded against the accused, is grooved on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record. Consequently, the judgment, rendered by the learned trial Court, does not suffer from any infirmity of mis-appreciation of evidence, hence, it does not necessitate or warrant interference by this Court. 9. Before proceeding to pronounce upon the tenacity and tenability of the submissions addressed before this Court by the learned counsel on either side, it is thought fit and appropriate to advert to the evidence on record, as only after, it, having come to be alluded to, would it be appropriate, to, discern and then consequently pronounce upon the sinew and strength of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel on either side before this Court. 10. PW-1 (Dr.Sanjay Juja) deposed that Amit Thakur, aged 24 years, was referred from Palampur, Hospital on 20.8.2003 at about 5.30 p.m., with stab injury abdomen. He deposes that the case history of the patient disclosed bleeding from the wound and pain in abdomen. He further deposes that ultrasound was done which displayed fluid in the abdomen. X-Ray of chest is deposed to be normal. Amit Thakur has been deposed by PW-1 to be operated on the same day. He testifies that about two liters of blood was present in the abdomen. There was tear in the omentum and injury to pancreatic tale and colonic perforation 2x2 cm which was closed. He further deposes that, on, 27.8.2003, the, patient developed Fistula to which exploration was done and another perforation in sigmoid was found which was closed post operately. He continues to depose that, on, 30.8.2003, the patient was taken by the attendants to request for refer. On that basis, the patient was going into ARDS owing to pancreatic Fistula for which Ventilatory support was required, yet, the said facility of which was not available in the hospital. Hence opinion comprised in Ext.PW-1/A was rendered by this witness. On the same day of admission, another patient Ajay Doru S/o Shri Subhash Doru was admitted with history of stab injury chest left side, there was bleeding from the wound, vitals were stable the wound was 3x2 cm. in size with fresh bleeding from the wound. X-Ray of chest was found to be normal. On the same day of admission, another patient Ajay Doru S/o Shri Subhash Doru was admitted with history of stab injury chest left side, there was bleeding from the wound, vitals were stable the wound was 3x2 cm. in size with fresh bleeding from the wound. X-Ray of chest was found to be normal. Ultrasound was also found to be normal. The patient is deposed to have recovered and discharged on 23.7.2003. Medical treatment certificate comprised, in, Ext.PW-1/B is deposed to have been proved and prepared by this witness. On 20.8.2003, another patient, namely, Munish Walia, aged 29 years, was also referred from Palampur, with stab injury chest left side, history of bleeding from the wound. On examination, the patient was stable. It was noticed that there was wound of left side chest inframammary region 2x3 cm. Chest X-Ray was normal. The wound was stitched and patient was discharged on 22.8.2003 at 12.30 p.m. 11. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, he has deposed that all the injured/victims were conscious on 20.8.2003 and all three of them were found fit to make statements. 12. PW-2 (Dr.Nitin Sethi) deposes that Amit Thakur, son of Ravinder Singh Thakur of village Chowki Khalate, Palampur, was brought to CMC Ludhiana for further treatment under reference from Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala. He deposes, that, Dr.Sunil K. Singh to be the Unit Incharge of the hospital where Amit Thakur was admitted. He deposes that on examination of the deceased Amit Thakur on his admission for treatment at CMC Ludhiana, he made the following observations:- “On examination HR 102 per minute, BP 130/70, fever 101 F. Chest bilateral decreased air entry, bilateral crepts present. P/A infected main wound with serious discharged, drain right flank, corrugated left side drain present (lesser sac)-according to records) Draining purulent and faeculent material. Patient was admitted with diagnosis of penetrating abdomen trauma. Hollow viscus perforation status repaired pancreatic injury status fistula. Patient kept NPO. Started on IV fulids and IV antibiotics, blood investigation were also sent. Amit Thakur patient died on 11.9.2003. Cause of death:- Cardiopulmonary arrest underlying cause foecal fistula penetrating abdomen wound, pancreatic injury.” 13. Patient was admitted with diagnosis of penetrating abdomen trauma. Hollow viscus perforation status repaired pancreatic injury status fistula. Patient kept NPO. Started on IV fulids and IV antibiotics, blood investigation were also sent. Amit Thakur patient died on 11.9.2003. Cause of death:- Cardiopulmonary arrest underlying cause foecal fistula penetrating abdomen wound, pancreatic injury.” 13. On demise of Amit Thakur, SHO, Division No.3, Ludhiana, was intimated vide letter Ext.PW-2/A. He continues to depose that Dr.Parvez David Haque prepared the Medical Legal Report comprised in Ext.PW-2/B. This witness has proved the preparation of Medical Injury Report comprised, in, Ext.PW-2/C. He deposes that injuries, mentioned in Ext.PW-2/B and Ext.PW-2/C can possibly be caused with blow of knife and Khukhari. Death certificate Ext.PW-2/D has been deposed to be issued by this witness. 14. PW-3 (Dr.Veena Sharma) has deposed that on 20.8.2003, she examined Amit Thakur, aged 22 years, at 5.10 p.m. with alleged history of fight. In her opinion, she has mentioned that injuries caused to Amit Thakur were dangerous to life. She issued MLC comprised in Ext.PW-3/B which bears her signature. PW-3 has further opined, that, the injuries described in MLC Ext.PW-3/B, are, possible with the blow of knife. 15. On the same day, time and place, PW-3 has examined Ajay Doru, aged 21 years, with the alleged history of fight and opined that injuries on the person of Ajay Doru were simple in nature. She deposed to have issued MLC comprised in Ex. PW-3/C. In her opinion, the weapon, used for inflicting injuries, was a sharp edged weapon. 16. PW-3 also examined Munish Walia, on the same day, time and place with the alleged history of fight and issued MLC comprised in Ex. PW-3/D. She further deposed that the injuries on the person of Munish Walia were found to be simple in nature. In her opinion, the weapon, used for inflicting injuries, was a sharp edged weapon. 17. During the course of cross examination of this witness, she has deposed that on her opinion, having come to be elicited, whether the injured were fit at that time to give statement, she returned the opinion that they were fit to give statement. She admits that at the time of preparation of MLC qua each of the injured, she was required to collect the history of the case. She admits that at the time of preparation of MLC qua each of the injured, she was required to collect the history of the case. She deposes that she does remember what she asked the victims/injured, at, the stage of theirs examination by her, about the assailants. She proceeds to also depose that she forgot to know their names and did not record their names. She further deposes that she was told that some fight has occurred between the boys in the College. She admits that Amit Thakur received only one external injury. She further admits that she did not ask Amit Thakur as to who inflicted the injury/injuries upon him. She has proceeded to deny, that, on her asking Amit Thakur about the person who inflicted injury on his person, he feigned ignorance about the assailants. Lastly, she has admitted that she did not ask the other injured/victims as to who were the assailants nor did they inform. 18. PW-4 (Dr. Gurcharan Singh) has deposed that on the application of police comprised in Ex. PW-4/A, SMO, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, he conducted the postmortem of deceased Amit Thakur, and, opined that cause of death was septicemic shock, which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. His report is comprised in Ex. PW-4/A. He further mentioned in his report that the injury is possible with the blow of knife. During his cross-examination, he has deposed that most of the patients recover completely after proper treatment. 19. PW-5 (Ajay), is, the injured witness. He deposes that on 20.8.2003 at about 4.30/4.45 p.m., he, along with Amit Thakur and Munish Walia, standing on the roadside near Degree College, Palampur, Sachin Pal, Vikas Chauhan, Sunny, Gaurav and Saurav were also present there along with some other boys. The aforesaid boys have been deposed by this witness to be ragging the fresh entrants. He deposes that he and his friends raised objection. However, all the accused, present in the Court, at once took out daggers from their possession and attacked three of them and caused injuries to them with knife and Khukhari. Amit Thakur is deposed to have been caught hold of by Sunny and Gaurav and accused Vikas Chauhan is deposed to have struck a knife blow in his stomach. However, all the accused, present in the Court, at once took out daggers from their possession and attacked three of them and caused injuries to them with knife and Khukhari. Amit Thakur is deposed to have been caught hold of by Sunny and Gaurav and accused Vikas Chauhan is deposed to have struck a knife blow in his stomach. When PW-5 and Munish Walia proceeded to free Amit Thakur from the clutches of the accused, the accused persons have been deposed to have delivered beatings to them. Munish Walia, is, also deposed to have been delivered beatings by accused Sachin probably with a knife. Subsequently, the accused have been deposed to have attacked PW-5. He further deposes that Saurav caught hold of him and Vikas Chauhan has been deposed to have given a blow of knife in his stomach and arm. He has been unable to name the weapon, however, he deposed that it was a sharp edged weapon. He further deposes that on receipt of injury, he became unconscious and regained his consciousness in the hospital at Palampur where he recorded his statement comprised, in, Ext.PW-5/A which bears his signatures. Ext.PW-3/C, is, deposed to be the MLC. During the course of his examination, he has been confronted to the fact of his having not got scribed the surname of Chauhan. Furthermore, he has deposed that he narrated to the police that Vikas belongs to Ghugger and he knows him personally. However, confronted with Ext.PW-5/A, it appears that this witness is improving his testimony recorded in Court, in as much, as, his deposing the fact of his knowing Vikas Chauhan personally for the first time in the Court. He also admits that Sachin, Vikas and Sunny are not his class fellows. He deposes that he had stated to the police that Amit Thakur was caught hold of by Gaurav and Sunny and accused Vikas Chauhan gave blows. On being confronted with Ext.PW-5/A, it is manifest that such a statement has not been recorded therein. 20. PW-6 (Munish Walia) has deposed in tandem with and has corroborated the prosecution version as deposed by PW-5. During the course of his cross-examination, this witness has admitted the fact that his statement has come to be recorded after 5-6 days. He deposes that PW-5 (Ajay Doru) was already in the hospital when he was admitted in the hospital at Palampur. During the course of his cross-examination, this witness has admitted the fact that his statement has come to be recorded after 5-6 days. He deposes that PW-5 (Ajay Doru) was already in the hospital when he was admitted in the hospital at Palampur. He denied the suggestion that delay in recording of his statement has been caused as he was not aware of the names of the assailants. 21. PW-7 (Vishal Sharma) has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. 22. PW-8 (Smt. Madhvi Thakur) has deposed that the police took into possession the blood stained clothes of Amit Thakur from her, vide Memo Ext.PW-8/A, which bears her signature and signatures of Subhash Chand and Sanjay Walia. 23. PW-9 (Naresh Kumar) in his statement deposes, that, he and Amit Kumar remained associated in the investigation. Accused Vikas Chauhan was interrogated in their presence. He further deposes that, on, the disclosure statement of Vikas Chauhan, comprised in Ext.PW-9/A, disclosure statement of Sachin Pal, comprised in Ext.PW- 9/B, police got recovered knife and Khukhari, respectively, which were concealed underneath the bushes near KLB College, in his presence, which bears his signature and signature of Amit Kumar. He further deposes that the knife, so recovered, was slightly blood smeared. He further deposed that sketches of knife as well as Khukhari, so recovered, were prepared vide memos Ext.PW-9/C and PW-9/E respectively and the same were taken into possession by the police vide memos Ext.PW-9/D and Ext.PW-9/F, which also bears the signature of this witness and Amit Kumar. Police also prepared site plans Ext.PW-9/G and Ext.PW-9/H, with regard to the recovery of Khukhari and knife respectively. 24. PW-10 (Sanjay Walia) has deposed, that, on 24.8.2003, he, handed over one blood stained Baniyan of Munish Walia to the police. He further deposed that Madhvi Thakur also handed over the clothes of Munish walia to the police. The same were taken into police custody, vide seizure memo Ext. PW-8/A, which bears his signatures. He further deposed that Subhash Chand also handed over blood stained shirt and an under vest, which were worn by Ajay Sharma, at the time of occurrence, to the police, which were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex. PW-10/B, which bears his signatures. 25. PW-8/A, which bears his signatures. He further deposed that Subhash Chand also handed over blood stained shirt and an under vest, which were worn by Ajay Sharma, at the time of occurrence, to the police, which were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex. PW-10/B, which bears his signatures. 25. PW-11 (Kuldeep Singh) is the cousin of deceased Amit Kumar, who has deposed that on 12.9.2003, the police prepared the inquest reports Ex.PW-11/A and Ext.PW-11/B in his presence, which was signed by him and Ravinder Singh. PW-12 (HHC Amarjit Singh) deposes that on 7.9.2003, MHC Rajinder Singh handed over five sealed parcels having seal impression ‘M’ to him vide RC No.214/21, which were deposited by him in FSL, Bharadi on 11.9.2003 and receipt was handed over by him to the MHC qua their deposit in the FSL, Bharadi. 26. PW-13 (Amit Kumar) deposes that on 24.8.2003, he was associated with the police investigation. He has proved on record disclosure statements made by accused Vikas Chauhan, comprised in Ex.PW9/A and accused Sachin Pal, comprised in Ex.PW9/B, respectively. He has identified his signature and signature of Naresh Kumar on the disclosure statements, as witnesses. He has also proved, on record, the recoveries of the weapons of offence, recovered at the instance of accused Vikas Chauhan and Sachin Pal, vide recovery memos Ex.PW9/D and Ex.PW9/F, which were signed by him. He has also proved on record the spot maps, Ex.PW9/G and Ex.PW9/H, of the places, from where the accused had got recovered the weapon of offences. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he do not know the deceased and injured. He deposes that he met witnesses Naresh Kumar for the first time in the police station. He deposes that when he reached the police station, accused Vikas Chauhan was called by the police. Accused Vikas Chauhan was known to him. Accused Sachin Pal was not known to him. He deposes that accused Vikas Chauhan told the police that the knife, which he has concealed near KLB college, can be recovered at his instance. He deposes that witness Naresh Kumar reached the room after him within 1-2 minutes. He further deposes that accused Sachin told the police that the khukari, which he has concealed near KLB college, can be recovered at his instance. He denied the suggestion that there were many people. He deposes that witness Naresh Kumar reached the room after him within 1-2 minutes. He further deposes that accused Sachin told the police that the khukari, which he has concealed near KLB college, can be recovered at his instance. He denied the suggestion that there were many people. He deposes that the recoveries were effected by both accused from places below the bushes and above the earth surface. He has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was made by the accused in his presence and no recovery was effected in his presence. 27. PW-14, H.C. Rajinder Singh deposes that on 20.8.2003 on receipt of message on telephone that three injured persons are admitted in the hospital, he entered DD No. 18, Ex.PW14/A. On 12.9.2003 he entered rapat No.5, Ex.PW14/B, at P.S. Palampur, on receipt of information from CMC, Ludhiyana, about the death of Amit Thakur on 11.9.2003. On 20.8.2003, S.I. Mohinder Singh had deposited five parcels duly sealed, three parcels containing clothes of injured and deceased Amit Kumar in separate parcel and in remaining parcel, one parcel was containing khukari and other parcel was containing knife. He made the entries of the above said parcel at serial No.107, dated 20.8.2003 and serial No.108, dated 24.8.2003. Entry was made in register No.19 of Malkhana Register. He deposes that on 7.9.2003, he handed over five sealed parcels of this case to HHC Amrjit vide R.C. No.214/21 for being deposited in FSL, Bharadi and who after deposit handed over the receipt to him. In cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that parcels containing khukari and knife, were tampered with. 28. PW-15 ASI, Gurbachan Singh, deposed that on 26.8.2003, he recorded the statement of Amit Thakur, Ex.PW15/A at Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala as per his version. In cross-examination he deposes that the statement does not show that it was recorded in presence of the doctor, Magistrate or independent person. Statement Ex.PW15/A was not signed by Amit Thakur as it was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. He has denied the suggestion that he had recorded the statement of Amit Thakur on his own and on the instruction of the Investigating Officer. 29. PW-16, SI Mool Raj has deposed that on 12.9.2003 on receipt of information with respect to the death of Amit Thakur he went to CMC, Ludhiana. 29. PW-16, SI Mool Raj has deposed that on 12.9.2003 on receipt of information with respect to the death of Amit Thakur he went to CMC, Ludhiana. On the dead body of Amit Kumar being handed over to him by CMC, Ludhiana, he prepared the inquest reports Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B in presence of Ravinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh. He deposes that on an application, Ex.PW4/A being moved by him, the doctor conducted the post mortem of deceased Amit Thakur. After the postmortem the dead body of the deceased was handedover to the father of the deceased vide receipt No.16/A. He deposes that the photographs Ex.PW16/B-1 to Ex.PW16/B-4 were taken and negatives thereof are Ex.PW16/B-5 to Ex.PW16/B-8. In cross-examination, he has deposed that deceased Amit Thakur remained under treatment from 20.8.2003 to 11.9.2003. 30. PW-17 Inspector Sanjay Sharma deposes that, on, 20.8.2003, he received rukka Ex.PW17/A in Police Station, Palampur which bears his endorsement Ex.PW14/A. Thereafter, he sent Mastan Singh, SI along with police personnel to SDH, Palampur. He deposes that on receipt of statement of Ajay Kumar, Ex.PW5/A, through HHC Bakshi Ram, he recorded the FIR Ex.PW17/B which was signed by him. He also deposes that after the completion of the investigation he prepared the challan as well, as, supplementary challan on receipt of the report of Chemical examiner, in this case, which were singed by him. In cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that rukka was received/prepared at 8.30 p.m. on 20.8.2003. 31. PW-18, SI Mastan Singh is the Investigating Officer. He deposes that on 20.8.2003 at about 5.30 a rukka, Ex.PW17/A was received in the Police Station, Palamapur, from doctor SD Hospital, Palampur, on which rapat Ex.PW14/A was entered in the daily diary. Thereafter he along with other police officials went to the hospital. He deposes that on getting the consent of the doctor, on application Ex.PW3/A being moved by him, he recorded the statement of Ajay Sharma, Ex.PW 5/A, which was readover and explained to the injured and the injured appended his signature, on it after understanding its contents. He deposes that thereafter the statement was sent to police station, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW17/B was registered against the accused, in the police station. He deposes that thereafter the statement was sent to police station, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW17/B was registered against the accused, in the police station. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW18/A. On the site of occurrence, he found a cover of khukari and a piece of wrist watch chain and took it into possession under recovery memo Ex.PW7/B in presence of the witnesses. He arrested accused Saurav on 21.8.2003 and thereafter other accused were arrested on 22.8.2003. He deposes that the further investigation in the case was conducted by Sh. Mahinder Singh, Addl. SHO. He has deposes that he is familiar with the signature and handwriting of Sh. Mahinder Singh, Addl. SHO as he has worked with him. He further deposes that disclosure statement of accused Vikas Chauhan Ex. PW9/A was scribed by Mahinder Singh and he identified the signature of Mahinder Singh on it at circle A. He also identified the signature of Mahinder Singh on disclosure statement, Ex.PW9/B, made by accused Sachin Pal. He further identified the signatures of Mahinder Singh on recovery memos Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW9/F. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the doctor had declared fit all the injured persons to give statement. He has denied the suggestion that he had not recorded the statements of these two injured persons due to the reason that they were not knowing as to who had attacked and injured them. He has admitted the suggestion that in statement Ex.PW5/A, the parentage and addresses of the accused have not been mentioned. He has also denied the suggestion that he had arrested three accused only on the basis of suspicion and he had no legal evidence to arrest them. He has also denied the suggestion that the statements of Munish Walia and Amit Thakur had been recorded by him subsequently to create evidence against the accused. He has admitted the suggestion that the statements of other two injured were not recorded by him because they were not feeling well at that time, as such, he recorded the statement of Ajay Sharma who was better than the others. He deposes that he tried to record statements of Munish Walia and Amit Thakur but they were not feeling well. He deposes that he tried to record statements of Munish Walia and Amit Thakur but they were not feeling well. He has denied the suggestion that Munish Walia and Amit Thaiur had nothing to say about Saurav and Gaurav accused and because of that reason their statements could not be recorded on that day. He has denied the suggestion that from the statements of Munish and Amit, no case was being made out against these accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that till 23.8.2003, he had deliberately not recorded the statement sof Amit and Munish. He has also denied the suggestion that before the supplementary statement there was no material with the police for implicating the accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that the accused have been implicated in a false case. 32. It is evident on an incisive and circumspect reading of the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3 and 4, all, of whom subjected the deceased Amit Kumar to treatment, as also, treated the other injured/victims, for the injuries sustained, in the assault perpetrated on their person by the accused, that, hence, deceased Amit Kumar succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the alleged incident, as also, that injuries were inflicted upon PW-5 and PW-6 with sharp edged weapons. His death has been proven by the medical evidence comprised in the depositions, aforesaid, to have arisen owing to septicaemic shock. The incident occurred on 20.8.2003 and Amit Thakur, aforesaid, succumbed to the injury sustained in the incident, on, 11.9.2003. This Court need not either delve into or dwell upon, rather, the admitted/proved fact arising from the attribution by the Medical Experts, of deceased Amit Thakur having died owing to reason, aforesaid, and which cause, arose from the injuries, initially sustained by him, in, the incident. Such injuries have been alleged by the prosecution to have been inflicted on the person of the deceased Amit Thakur by accused Vikas Chauhan while he was caught hold of by both co-accused Sunny and Gaurav. Accused Vikas is alleged to have delivered a knife blow on the stomach of the deceased. PW-5 and PW-6 both were also delivered injuries by accused Vikas Chauhan with a sharp edged weapon. Accused Vikas is alleged to have delivered a knife blow on the stomach of the deceased. PW-5 and PW-6 both were also delivered injuries by accused Vikas Chauhan with a sharp edged weapon. The MLC prepared with respect to, the, then injured Amit Thakur, is, comprised in Ext.PW-3/B, MLCs prepared by the Medical Officer with respect to injured PW-5 and PW-6 are comprised in Ext.PW-3/C and Ext.PW-3/D, respectively. The Doctors, who subjected the injured/ victim, to, treatment in unanimity and with reinforced corroboration, have deposed that injures can possibly be caused with weapon of offence i.e knife or Khukri. Medical experts have withstood the test of a rigorous and inexorable cross-examination to which each of the medical experts were subjected to. The Court has not been able to unearth, on a careful discerning study of the testimonies of the medical witnesses that, hence, the injuries sustained by the victim/injured, in, the assault perpetrated on their person by the accused have been, so, falsely deposed to have been inflicted with sharp edged weapon. Hence, this Court dis-spells any impression or inference which may surge forth of injuries having been gained on the person of the injured/victims/deceased by reason other than infliction of blows, on the person of injured/victim/deceased, with sharp edged weapons. The testimonies of injured witnesses while deposing as PW-5 and PW- 6 underscores the fact of the prosecution, hence, having proved the genesis of the prosecution story, as, comprised in Ex. PW-5/A. Even if there are some improvements in the testimony of PW-5, in, as much as, of his having not promptly named/disclosed to the police, the first name of accused Vikas Chauhan at the time of recording of PW-5/A, whereas, he has disclosed his full name while testifying, in, the Court, hence, his testification being ridden with embellishments or improvements, may render it to be blemished. However, the fact that his statement comprised in Ex. However, the fact that his statement comprised in Ex. PW-5/A was promptly recorded in hospital, when he had an enduring impression of his assailants, hence, even if, it has emerged in his testimony, as well, as, in the testimony of PW-6, that, the assailants were not their class-fellows, however, yet, it appears that there has been no inaccuracy, in, the naming of the accused, as, the assailants of both PW-5 and PW-6 as, well as, deceased Amit Thakur, in as much, as, (a) there is no suggestion put either to PW-5 or PW-6 that the names of assailants were suggested to them by their attending Doctors or by the police officials who recorded his statement comprised, in, Ext.PW-5/A. (b) Omission of suggestion to either PW-5 and PW-6 by the defence counsel that they have concocted the naming of the assailants, as such, the FIR is manufactured, concocted as well as invented, arising from their names having come to be suggested either by the Doctor who attended upon them or the police officials who recorded the statements dispels, as well, as, overcomes, besides overwhelms the fact of theirs having been any concoction on the part of both PW-5 or PW-6 qua their naming and identifying the assailants. 33. Though, it has been contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the accused / appellants, that, there has been omission on the part of the Doctors, who, initially examined the injured/victims and the deceased and prepared MLCs, in consequence to theirs examining them, to, elicit the history of the case or to elicit the names of the assailants, hence, omission of the names of the assailants in the MLCs, shrouds the naming of the assailants, in, the F.I.R. Ext.PW-17/B by PW-5 to be engulfed in a shroud of doubt. However, the said inference has a momentary sheen, which, sheen acquires no permanence, rather, it fades and erodes, in, face of PW-3 having deposed, that, neither she elicited from the accused the names of the assailants nor they informed to her their names, prods this Court, to, conclude that even when, she, has initially in her deposition deposed qua the fitness of the injured/victims to make a statement, yet, theirs having omitted to name the assailants at that stage, cannot, burden such an omission with the inference of fatality to the prosecution case. (i) As the fact of recording of the F.I.R., at, the instance of PW-5 comprised in Ext.PW-17/B, in the hospital in quick succession to the admission of PW-5 in the hospital, robs the inference of its efficacy and vigor and also robs the surging inference, of, omission of the assailants to victims to either name the assailants at the time of their examination by the attending doctor or the omission on the part of attending doctor to elicit the names of the assailants from the injured, at, the time of admission, of, its fatality. 34. Preponderantly, the incident took place, at, 4.45 p.m. and the F.I.R. qua the occurrence was lodged at 6.15 p.m. in the hospital by PW-5 on the strength of his statement comprised, in, Ext.PW-5/A. The said delay is minimal and even if assuming that, all, the injured/victims were fit to make statements, theirs, not, having immediately made a statement would, not, imbue the prosecution case with any hue of fatality, as, the reason which has been attributed herein-above, of the injured witness (PW-5) having in quick succession to his admission in hospital recorded, the, statement comprised in Ext.PW-5/A wherein, he, named the assailants, hence, gripping it with the vital colour of truth. Consequently, when for omission on the part of the learned defence counsel, to, render the naming of accused by PW-5 to be an invention or concoction, an apposite suggestion, conveying such naming to have been engendered by either the doctors or police officials, would have rendered such a possible inference of concoction and invention, in naming the assailants by the injured witnesses to rear, hence, its omission renders, it, to fall in the limbo of oblivion and it having no force or vitality. In Ananta Deb Singha Mahapatra & Ors. Versus State of West Bengal, 2007 Cri.L.J. 1705, it has been held that on a consideration of evidence of eye witnesses, doctor and or police officers, who advise injured persons to go to PHC before registration of FIR and when there was omission to name the assailants to the attending doctors, it cannot be said that names of accused were planted or inserted subsequently as assailants. As a sequel then, it has to be concluded that both PW-5 and PW-6, the injured witnesses, are believable, in, aftermath it has to be also concluded, that, each of them has deposed truthfully about the incident, bereft of any prevarication, even if there was any omission, by them, at the time of theirs being treated by attending doctors in naming the assailants. Rather, when PW-5 having in quick and prompt succession recorded his statement Ext.PW-5/A on the strength whereof Ext.PW-17/B was registered, wherein the names of the assailants are occurring, for reiteration, convincingly secures, a, firm and prompt conclusion that there, is, no iota of concoction and invention on the part of PW-5, to, name the assailants. Furthermore, even if there, is, a delay on the part of the Investigating Officer to record the statement of PW-6, in as much, as, it came to be recorded 5-6 days after the occurrence, the effect of said delay whittles down and dilutes, hence, is of no legal efficacy, to, the learned counsel for the accused/appellants, to, develop an argument on its strength that, hence, it renders un-believable, the witnesses, especially when in the face of it having been proved on a discerning study of the evidence on record, adverted to herein-above and herein-after, of, his having received injuries as also given the prompt lodging of F.I.R., at, the instance of co-injured/victim, who, in his statement, disclosed the names of the assailants, which, hence, portray that Ext.PW-17/B acquires vigor and life. 35. Apart from the discussion hereinabove palpably manifesting the fact of the accused being the assailants, the fact of recovery of weapons of offence comprised in Ext.PW-9/B and Ext.PW- 9/F, respectively, in, pursuance to their disclosure statements comprised in Ext.PW-9/A and Ext.PW-9/B, proved by the deposition of recovery witnesses underscores the fact, that, accused were the assailants. Since the recoveries aforesaid, do not portray lack of legal efficacy in the manner of their recovery, hence, recovery of weapons of offence i.e. knife and Khukhari, Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2, respectively, under recovery memos comprised in Ext.PW-9/D and Ext.PW-9/F, in pursuance to disclosure statements comprised in Ext.PW-9/A and Ext.PW-9/B, lead this Court, to, convincingly conclude, that the stab blows, delivered on the person of deceased Amit Thakur, PW-5 and PW-6, were at the instance of the accused Vikas Chauhan and Sachin Pal. The factum of proved recoveries of weapons of offence at the instance of the accused Vikas Chauhan and Sachin, hence, emasculates, the, contention of the learned counsel of the accused/appellant, that, omission of naming of the assailants by PW-5, at, the time of admission in hospital to the Doctors, who attended upon them, renders the naming of the accused in FIR Ext.PW-17/B, to be lacking in force. 36. The learned trial Court had convicted and sentenced the accused for theirs having committed an offence under Section 304 –II read with Section 34 of the IPC. The learned trial Court tenably attributed vicarious criminal liability to all the accused, in as much, as, while considering the proven roles of Gaurav and Saurav to hold back Amit Thakur, while accused Vikas Chauhan delivered the stab blows, as, also given the proven role of Sachin of his having prevented or precluded PW-5 and PW-6 from rescuing Amit Thakur from the clutches of accused Vikas Chauhan, hence, having facilitated Vikas Chauhan to stab deceased Amit Thakur in the stomach to which injuries, he, ultimately succumbed. Hence, it tenably concluded, that, all the four shared joint and common intention, as such, the provision of Section 304-II read with Section 34 IPC were attractable. The punishment as meted out to the accused, is, in sequel to the learned Court below invoking the provisions of Section 304-II read with Section 34 IPC. The reason as attributed by the learned trial Court for not punishing the accused under Section 302 IPC, rather, punishing the accused while invoking and inviting the provisions of Section 304-II of IPC is anchored on the premise of the accused having knowledge to cause death, yet, theirs not having intention to cause death, as, the injury which squealed the demise of deceased Amit Thakur, was, an aftermath to a sudden quarrel which ensued inter-se the deceased and other victims PW-5 and PW-6 with the accused. Moreover, the pronouncements of opinion by PW-1 and PW-4, that, the injuries were dangerous to life and were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and when the demise of Amit Kumar took place after 20 days of the occurrence, has, also, tenably led the trial Court to conclude, that, it was a case of culpable homicide and not of murder. Consequently the punishment, as, imposed, does not warrant any interference. Consequently the punishment, as, imposed, does not warrant any interference. The conviction and sentence, as imposed by the learned trial Court, is affirmed and maintained. 37. In the result, Cr.Appeal No.113 of 2011, preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence, as also, Cr.Appeal No.472 of 2010 and Cr.Appeal No.505 of 2010, preferred by the accused/appellants, are dismissed.