Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2177 (ALL)

DINESH v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-07-30

RAGHVENDRA KUMAR, SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Raghvendra Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the material available on record. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of accused-appellant Dinesh against the judgment and order dated 11.2.1986 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 282 of 1984 (State v. Dinesh) under Section 302 IPC in Case Crime No. 212 of 1984, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District-Bijnor whereby the accused-appellant Dinesh has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 3. The FIR of the incident was lodged with police on 1.5.1984 at 10.30 am with respect to incident occurred on 1.5.1984 at 9 am. From perusal of FIR it is revealed that deceased Vinay Kumar Sharma and Madan Pal Saini lived in the same locality and their houses were at a very short distance from each other. Vinay Kumar was employed with Madan Pal Saini at his Ice Cream factory. On the preceding day of incident while Vinay Kumar was working in the Ice Cream factory, accused Dinesh Kumar came to him and kneed on his buttocks. Reacting to the same, deceased Vinay Kumar slapped accused-appellant Dinesh Kumar. Feeling insulted, Dinesh extended threats to see him. On the next day at 9 am while Madan Pal Saini (PW 1) was going to his factory accompanied by deceased Vinay Kumar, as they reached in front of the house of one Khalil Ahmad, they met with Ravendra Kumar (PW 2) and Raghunath Singh (PW 3) and they started interacting with each other. Deceased Vinay, who was accompanying Madan Pal Saini (PW 1), moved 7-8 paces ahead from them. In the meantime, accused Dinesh appeared from the mandir wali gali (temple lane) and stabbed Vinay on his abdomen, with a knife telling him that he had insulted him yesterday and went back to mandir lane. Vinay by putting hand on the wound chased the accused, the rest three persons also tried to chase the accused. Victim Vinay Kumar fell down in front of the house of Hukum Barhai and was taken to hospital on a rickshaw. After registration of the case, the investigation proceeded in accordance with law. 4. Injured Vinay Kumar was hospitalized and medically examined at 9.35 am on 1.5.1984 by Dr. Vijay Kumar Goel. Victim Vinay Kumar fell down in front of the house of Hukum Barhai and was taken to hospital on a rickshaw. After registration of the case, the investigation proceeded in accordance with law. 4. Injured Vinay Kumar was hospitalized and medically examined at 9.35 am on 1.5.1984 by Dr. Vijay Kumar Goel. The doctor has mentioned one incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm in upper abdomen, epigastric area 15 cm below the right nipple. Margins were sharp. Omentum was coming out. The doctor has further opined injuries-grievous, duration-fresh, object-sharp edged weapon. On the right side of injury report the doctor has made certain observations which are as following : General condition-very low, irritable ; pulse-not palpable; blood pressure-not recordable; limbs were cold; respiration-rapid and shallow. 5. Subsequently on death of injured Vinay Kumar Sharma @ Ram Saran Sharma, the post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. R.C. Maheshwari, who has noted the following ante-mortem injuries : Incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep on centre of the upper abdomen in epigastric area about 15 cm below the right nipple, omentum was coming out. Fresh bleeding was present. Clotted blood was present around the wound. Margins were clear. The cause of death was shown as shock and haemorrhage as a result of above injuries. The duration of death was approximately1/4 day. 6. Inquest and other formalities were done in the instant case and subsequently, the investigation culminated into filing of police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC in the shape of charge-sheet. 7. The defence case in short is that the FIR is anti time. There is a dispute with respect to identity of deceased whether he is Vinay Kumar Sharma or Ram Saran Sharma? The witnesses of fact are the chance witnesses and their testimonies are not trustworthy. The prosecution case as a whole does not inspire confidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused-appellant. 8. To substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW 1 Madan Pal Saini, PW 2 Ravendra Kumar Sharma and PW 3 Raghunath Singh as the witnesses of incident. PW 4 S.I. Khemanand Joshi has proved the execution of inquest report marked as Ext Ka.2 and other related papers prepared for the purposes of conducting the post-mortem examination and has proved the execution thereof. PW 5 Dr. PW 4 S.I. Khemanand Joshi has proved the execution of inquest report marked as Ext Ka.2 and other related papers prepared for the purposes of conducting the post-mortem examination and has proved the execution thereof. PW 5 Dr. R.C. Maheshwari has conducted post-mortem examination on the corpus of deceased and has proved the execution of post-mortem examination report marked as Ext Ka.8. PW 6 Dr. Vijay Kumar Goel has proved the execution of medical examination report marked as Ext Ka.9. PW 7 Head Mohrir, Dori Lal has proved the execution of Chik FIR marked as Ext Ka.10 and has also proved the relevant entries of G.D. marked as Ext Ka.11 and relevant entries of the G. D. for conversion of offence from 307 IPC to 302 IPC marked as Ext Ka.12. PW 8 S.I. Dharmendra Kumar Tyagi is the I.O., who had proved the execution of Ext Ka.13 i.e. the site plan. PW 9 is subsequent I.O. Narottam Singh and he has proved the execution of charge-sheet marked as Ext Ka.14. 9. After conclusion of prosecution evidence the statement of accused Dinesh was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. He has denied the prosecution version and submitted that the prosecution case was lodged against him because of enmity. Out of enmity the witnesses have deposed against him. He has specifically taken the plea of alibi by saying that he was residing at Sultanpur on the relevant date and time. 10. Sri Jitendra Swaroop Bhatnagar has been examined as DW 1 on behalf of accused. 11. After scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Court below vide its judgment and order dated 11.2.1986 convicted accused-appellant Dinesh Kumar, hence the instant appeal. 12. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for accused-appellant that the accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. He has further submitted that accused was juvenile at the time of commission of the offence. The accused was not present at the place of occurrence. Further submission is that the FIR is anti time. There is a dispute of identity of deceased because somewhere the name of deceased has been mentioned as Vinay Kumar Sharma while at other place it has been mentioned as Ram Saran Sharma. The witnesses of facts are chance witnesses. Their evidence is thus, not trustworthy. 13. Further submission is that the FIR is anti time. There is a dispute of identity of deceased because somewhere the name of deceased has been mentioned as Vinay Kumar Sharma while at other place it has been mentioned as Ram Saran Sharma. The witnesses of facts are chance witnesses. Their evidence is thus, not trustworthy. 13. Learned A.G.A. refuted the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and submitted that it is a case of broad day light murder. All the witnesses of fact namely, PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 have seen the occurrence. They have fully supported the prosecution version. They are not the chance witnesses and the defence witness, who has been examined does not inspire confidence. The prosecution has successfully substantiated the guilt against the accused-appellant Dinesh. 14. Hon’ble the Apex Court has been pleased to lay down the guidelines for High Court for exercising Appellate jurisdiction in criminal side while deciding criminal appeals from time to time. The Hon’ble Apex Court has propounded the following principles in Padam Singh v. State of U.P., 2000 (1) SCC 621 , which is quoted here : “it is the duty of an appellate Court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate Court in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. It must be remembered that the appellate Court, like the trial Court, has to be satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as the presumption of innocence with which the accused starts, continues right through until he is held guilty by the final Court of appeal and that presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial Court.” 15. Further guidelines have been issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rama and others v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (4) SCC 571 , which is as under: “It is well-settled that in a criminal appeal, a duty is enjoined upon the appellate Court to reappraise the evidence itself and it cannot proceed to dispose of the appeal upon appraisal of evidence by the trial Court alone especially when the appeal has been already admitted and placed for final hearing. Upholding such a procedure would amount to negation of valuable right of appeal of an accused, which cannot be permitted under law.” 16. The guidelines have been issued by three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Majjal v. State of Haryana, 2013 (6) SCC 798 , which is as under: “It was necessary for the High Court to consider whether the trial Court’s assessment of the evidence and its opinion that the appellant must be convicted deserve to be confirmed. This exercise is necessary because the personal liberty of an accused is curtailed because of the conviction. The High Court must state its reasons why it is accepting the evidence on record. The High Court’s concurrence with the trial Court’s view would be acceptable only if it is supported by reasons. In such appeals it is a Court of first appeal. Reasons cannot be cryptic. By this, we do not mean that the High Court is expected to write an unduly long treatise. The judgment may be short but must reflect proper application of mind to vital evidence and important submissions which to to the root of the matter.” 17. The aforesaid observations have been quoted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a very recent judgment in the case of Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna and another v. State of Gujarat, 2014 Cr LJ 443. 18. Keeping in view the propositions cited above, the Court is to scrutinize the evidence available before it and to draw the inference accordingly, bearing in mind the presumption of innocence of accused unless otherwise is established from evidence available on record without being influenced by the findings recorded by learned trial Court. 19. The plea of juvenility was raised on behalf of accused-appellant and an application to this effect was moved. The application was disposed of by the order dated 5.9.2014 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 19. The plea of juvenility was raised on behalf of accused-appellant and an application to this effect was moved. The application was disposed of by the order dated 5.9.2014 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The said order was assailed before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8322/2014 (Dinesh v. State of U.P.) whereupon the Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass the following order : “Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition reserving liberty for the petitioner to raise the question of juvenility of the petitioner in any appeal against the final judgment of the High Court may deliver in Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 1986. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty prayed for.” It has been argued by learned A.G. A. that the order dated 5.9.2014 was passed in this appeal by a Co-ordinate Bench, hence it cannot be reviewed in view of Section 362 Cr. P.C. The order dated 5.9.2014 has been passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rejecting the plea of juvenility raised by the appellant holding him not entitled to the benefit as provided under Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000. At this stage, the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench cannot be re-opened or reconsidered. As such, the appellant is not entitled to get any benefit on the basis of plea of juvenility. 20. So far as plea of alibi is concerned, it is settled proposition of law that once the plea of alibi is taken by the accused-appellant, the onus of proving the facts constituting the plea of alibi heavily lies upon him (accused-appellant). No such evidence has been led on behalf of accused-appellant, which may establish the defence of alibi in favour of the appellant. In absence of direct and cogent evidence the plea of alibi raised on behalf of accused-appellant cannot be sustained. 21. Much emphasis has been laid by the counsel for the appellant on the authenticity of the inquest report. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Motilal v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 Law Suit (SC) 1047, in Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2003. 21. Much emphasis has been laid by the counsel for the appellant on the authenticity of the inquest report. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Motilal v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 Law Suit (SC) 1047, in Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2003. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that there is no explanation that how the inquest report was prepared at a point of time when the FIR was not in existence. Ext Ka.2 has been challenged firstly on the ground that in the column of name Vinay Kumar @ Ram Saran Sharma has been mentioned. The name of accused has not been mentioned. The manner in which offence has been committed has been mentioned. The description of the offence is lacking in the inquest report and the person who intimated about the death is sweeper Ram Kishan. All these infirmities indicate that the FIR was not in existence at the time of execution of inquest report. Hence, the FIR is anti time. 22. The execution of inquest report has been proved by PW 4 S.I. Khema Nand Joshi. So far as the name of Ram Saran Sharma and Vinay Kumar Sharma is concerned, PW 4 has explained the position in paragraph 3 of his cross-examination. He has mentioned that he received a note from the District Hospital at 1.10 pm whereby he came to learn about death of Vinay Kumar. It is pertinent to mention that Chik FIR Ext Ka 10 was executed on the basis of written report Ext ka.1 and the G. D. entry with respect to registration of the case was made which is Ext Ka.11. Head Mohrir, Dori Lal (PW 7) has proved the G. D. entry Ext Ka.12 whereby the case was converted under Section 302 IPC. PW 1 Madan Pal Saini has proved the execution of written report Ext Ka.1. From perusal of Ext Ka.10 it is revealed that the FIR of the incident was lodged with the police on 1.5.1984 at 10.30 am with respect to incident occurred on 1.5.1984 at 9 am. From perusal of inquest report it is revealed that information was received at 1.10 pm. The inquest was conducted at the Government Hospital, Bijnor on 1.5.1984 at 13.30 pm, which continued up to 2.45 pm. The inquest was duly signed by “Panchs” and PW 4 S. I. Khema Nand. From perusal of inquest report it is revealed that information was received at 1.10 pm. The inquest was conducted at the Government Hospital, Bijnor on 1.5.1984 at 13.30 pm, which continued up to 2.45 pm. The inquest was duly signed by “Panchs” and PW 4 S. I. Khema Nand. On the top of opening page of the document Ext Ka.2 appears the crime number 212 of 1984, which is indicative of the fact that the FIR was registered with the concerned P.S. 23. In view of the facts stated above, the law cited by learned counsel for the accused-appellant is not of much avail to him because in the instant case the FIR was registered on 1.5.1984 at 10.30 am and the investigation of the case was converted under Section 302 IPC vide G. D. entry Ext Ka.12 at 1.10 pm whereas the inquest report clearly mentions in the first column, dated as 1.5.1984, time as 13.10 pm and just below it date 1.5.1984 and time 13.30 pm, Mortuary, Government Hospital, Bijnor. The crime number on the inquest report is also indicative of the fact that the FIR was in existence. In the instant case initially the FIR was registered under Section 307 IPC, which was subsequently converted under Section 302 IPC after the death of injured. Even for argument sake it is presumed that there is some defect in the inquest report, the legal proposition in this regard is ample clear. 24. The purpose of inquest has been dealt by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 288 , which reads as under : “The object of the proceedings under Section 174 CrPC, is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and, if so, what was its apparent cause. The question regarding the details of how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted, is foreign to the ambit and scope of such proceedings i.e. the inquest report is not the statement of any person wherein all the names of the persons accused must be mentioned. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery, etc. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery, etc. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report.” 25. From perusal of above proposition it is explicit that any omission with respect to the fact that how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted, is foreign to the ambit and scope of proceedings under Section 174 CrPC. Any such omissions would have no bearing on the veracity or authenticity of the inquest report under Section 174 Cr. P.C. 26. In view of the legal proposition cited above the argument advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellant cannot be sustained. 27. It has been submitted on behalf of accused-appellant that there is a dispute with respect to identity of injured/deceased Vinay Kumar Sharma. It has been highlighted by the appellant’s counsel on the basis of inquest report, post-mortem report where Vinay Kumar Sharma @ Ram Saran Sharma or Ram Saran Sharma @ Vinay Kumar Sharma has been mentioned. Written report (Ext Ka.1) bears the name of injured Vinay. The Chik FIR also bears the name of injured/deceased as Vinay. The injury report, which was prepared at 9.35 am on 1.5.1984 bears the name of Vinay Kumar Sharma as injured. The person, who is alleged to be injured, is Vinay Kumar Sharma as per the FIR and the manner in which he sustained injuries has been fully supported by the medical examination report wherein his name has been shown as Vinay Kumar Sharma. It would not be out of context to highlight that in the statement under Section 313 CrPC wherever the name of deceased Vinay Kumar Sharma appears nowhere it has been alleged by the accused-appellant through his statement under Section 313 CrPC that there was no such person in the name of Vinay Kumar Sharma, meaning thereby that the opportunity of challenging the identity of deceased Vinay Kumar as Ram Saran Sharma was available before the accused at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC but, he did not avail the opportunity. Nowhere any suggestion has been given on behalf of the accused to any of the witnesses challenging the identity of the deceased Vinay Kumar Sharma. Nowhere any suggestion has been given on behalf of the accused to any of the witnesses challenging the identity of the deceased Vinay Kumar Sharma. Absence of any challenge to the identity of the deceased to the witnesses of fact, would have negative impact on the sustainability of argument on behalf of accused-appellant regarding identity of accused. 28. PW 4 Khema Nand Joshi has explained why he has written Vinay Kumar @ Ram Saran Sharma and who has been sufficiently cross-examined on the point of behalf of accused-appellant. This name of deceased has been repeated by PW 5 Dr. R.C. Maheshwari while executing post-mortem examination report. It would have been most appropriate for the accused to put suggestion to I.O. about identity of deceased Vinay Kumar Sharma @ Ram Saran Sharma or Ram Saran Sharma @ Vinay Kumar Sharma. PW 4, the I.O. would have been the best person to authenticate the identity of deceased. More so, no such suggestion has been given to the witnesses of fact. This would also have the negative bearing on the argument advanced in this regard on behalf of accused-appellant. 29. It has been submitted on behalf of accused-appellant that Khalil and Hukum Barhai have not been examined by the I.O. After sustaining the stab wound the deceased put his hand on the wound and chased the accused-appellant-assailant and fell down in front of the house of Hukum Barhai. Khalil is the shop owner where Raghunath (PW 2) and Ravendra (PW 3) were allegedly smoking. In this case right from the FIR till the examination of witnesses of fact there has been a uniform and specific case of prosecution about the date, time, place and manner of occurrence and the name of accused, who committed the offence. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 are alleged to be the witnesses of fact. It is a case of direct evidence. Even if, it is presumed for argument sake for Khalil and Hukum were the relevant persons, who should have been examined by the I.O. and the I.O. ought have recorded their statements. The omission in this regard would not substantially prejudice the veracity of the prosecution version. It is a settled proposition of law that minor omissions, which do not go into the root of prosecution case, would have no adverse bearing. 30. The omission in this regard would not substantially prejudice the veracity of the prosecution version. It is a settled proposition of law that minor omissions, which do not go into the root of prosecution case, would have no adverse bearing. 30. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that non-examination of Khalil and Hukum Barhai would not prove to be fatal for the prosecution. 31. It has been submitted on behalf defence that the I.O. Dharmendra Kumar Tyagi has categorically stated that when he reached the hospital about 14.30 hours injured Vinay Kumar was unconscious, therefore, his statement was not recorded. It leads to an inference that the I.O. perhaps did not visit the hospital at the alleged time because, as per statement of PW 7 Head Mohrir Dori Lal it is evident that after receipt of information of the death of deceased at 1.10 pm the offence under Section 302 IPC was added by G. D. entry marked as Ext Ka.12. At the most it would come within the ambit of negligence or defective investigation on the part of the I.O. By and now the legal position in this regard has been crystallized and it has been settled that where there is direct evidence any discrepancy in the investigation would not outrightly have the effect of discarding the prosecution version. In the case of Motilal v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 Law Suit (SC) 1047 in para 6 the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as follows: “It is true that a faulty investigation cannot be a determinative factor and would not be sufficient to throw out a credible prosecution version.” 32. It has been argued on behalf of appellant that no sample of blood stained soil or ordinary soil was taken by the I.O. from the place of occurrence and from the place where the deceased fell down i.e. in front of the house of Hukum Barhai. A categorical version has come before the Court that after being stabbed, the deceased put his hand over the stab wound and chased the accused-appellant alongwith PW1, PW 2 and PW 3. After chasing for certain distance, the deceased Vinay Kumar fell down in front of the house of Hukum Barhai. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital. A categorical version has come before the Court that after being stabbed, the deceased put his hand over the stab wound and chased the accused-appellant alongwith PW1, PW 2 and PW 3. After chasing for certain distance, the deceased Vinay Kumar fell down in front of the house of Hukum Barhai. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital. Since, the wound was covered by hand, the chance of blood oozing out in the quantity as in normal circumstance it would have been expected, is reduced. At the same time, when he fell at the place mentioned above there might have been some blood, which have been absorbed or, even if, for argument sake it is considered that the blood had fallen on the place of occurrence and in front of the house of Hukum Barhai, the sample was not collected by the I.O., at the most it may be considered that the I.O. has not discharged his obligations as he was expected to discharge. It is the settled proposition of law that the investigating agencies are expected to be fair and efficient and they are required to discharge their obligations with utmost sincerity. Any lapse on its part would not pursue to be a ground to throw out the prosecution version, which has been overwhelmingly proved by the ocular evidence. The legal proposition, which has been settled through catena of decisions, cannot be ignored. 33. Thus, remains the critical appraisal of the testimonies of the eye-witnesses/witnesses of fact PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. The testimonies of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 have been assailed on the score that they were not present on the spot and if, at all their presence is taken they are the chance witnesses and, therefore, their testimonies do not inspires confidence. 34. Before critical appraisal of the evidence of the witnesses of fact/eye-witnesses it appears incumbent upon the Court to consider the testimony of DW 1. The attendance register discloses that Raghunath Singh was working as a fuseman at the relevant time on the Electric Sub Station. He has produced the attendance register. The register, which has been produced, discloses that none of the employees whose names find place in the register did not avail the leave from September 1984 to March 1985. The register has not been signed by any superior officer. He has produced the attendance register. The register, which has been produced, discloses that none of the employees whose names find place in the register did not avail the leave from September 1984 to March 1985. The register has not been signed by any superior officer. It is not disclosed from the register that DW 1 was an appropriate and competent person to maintain the attendance register and was duly authorized in this behalf by the department. From perusal of register it appears that its authenticity is not verified by any superior officer as such, it does not inspire confidence. 35. From critical appraisal of the testimonies of eye-witnesses/witnesses of fact it is evident that the incident took place when Madan Pal Saini (PW 1) was accompanied by deceased Vinay while going to the ice factory where PW 2 Ravendra Kumar Sharma and PW 3 Raghunath Singh met them in the way. PW 2 and PW 3 were standing near the shop of Khalil where Madan Pal Saini started talking to them. PW 1 Madal Pal Saini has categorically stated that accused threatened to Vinay that “you have insulted me, I will dispose off to you finally”. By saying that accused assaulted Vinay by knife and after assault he went back in the lane. Vinay Kumar, Ravendra Kumar (PW 2) and Raghunath Singh (PW 3) accompanied by PW 1 Madan Pal Saini chased the accused Dinesh. Vinay Kumar fell down in front of the house of Hukum Barhai (carpenter) and thereafter, he was taken to the hospital. From perusal of medical examination report it is explicit that he was examined by Dr. Vijay Kumar Goel at about 9.35 am on 1.5.1984. PW 1 was put to cross-examination and was cross-examined on different dates. Learned counsel for the defence has assailed the testimony on the score that witness-PW 1 has mentioned about the blood spot on the place of occurrence and as well as on the place where Vinay Kumar fell down i.e. in front of the house of Hukum Barhai but, the I.O. has not taken the sample of blood stained soil and plain soil. This creates doubt upon the testimony of PW 1. This creates doubt upon the testimony of PW 1. On thorough scrutiny of examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW 1, it is evident that the story set up in the FIR finds corroboration from the testimony of this witness with regard to the motive, manner, time, place and date of occurrence. 36. PW 2 Ravendra Kumar has also disclosed his presence on the place of occurrence and has corroborated the FIR version. He has stated that the incident took place at 9 am on 1.5.1984 while he was talking with Madan Pal Saini (PW 1) and Raghunath Singh (PW 3). He has also corroborated the factum of assault to Vinay by accused Dinesh with a knife and thereafter, chasing of the accused by injured Vinay, PW 1 and PW 3 and including this witness too, to a distance up to the house of one Hukum Barhai where the injured fell down and they could not catch the accused. This witness has also been put to cross-examination. He has also corroborated the factum of motive behind the assault in his cross-examination. 37. PW 3 Raghunath Singh has also supported the FIR version and has stated that date and time of occurrence to be on 1.5.1984 at 9 am and he has fully corroborated the reason and manner for assault. According to this witness also, after assault the injured was taken to hospital and was medically examined. This witness was put to cross-examination and he has made no admission so as to put question mark upon his statement given in examination-in-chief. 38. From perusal of the entire evidence of these eye-witnesses/witnesses of facts it is apparent that there is a coherence in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW 1. No material contradiction has been pointed out in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW 2. No vital inconsistency has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant in the inter se examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW 3. On the total evaluation of testimonies of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 we find complete coherence in examination-in-chief and cross-examination inter se in their testimonies. No material contradiction has been highlighted, which may prove to be fatal for the prosecution. On the total evaluation of testimonies of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 we find complete coherence in examination-in-chief and cross-examination inter se in their testimonies. No material contradiction has been highlighted, which may prove to be fatal for the prosecution. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has failed to draw the attention of the Court towards any material inconsistency, which may be treated to be sufficient for discarding the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. 39. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has stated that the presence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 is as per chance. 40. As a matter of fact, the question of consideration of chance witnesses has come before the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time and the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to lay down the guidelines for the appreciation of evidence of a chance witness. 41. The legal proposition has been crystallized with respect to appreciation of evidence of a chance witness and the Courts have been enjoined with the duty to scrutinize the testimony of witnesses of fact with utmost care and caution. Even presuming PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 as chance witnesses for argument sake, what is required in law is that their evidence is to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. Even careful and cautious appraisal of the evidence leads to inference that deceased Vinay Kumar, who was assaulted at the place of occurrence by accused Dinesh by knife causing stab wound, the incident was seen by all the witnesses PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, the injured was taken to hospital and was medically examined at 9.30 am. The FIR of this case was lodged with the police at 10.30 am under Section 307 IPC and subsequently, after death of injured Vinay Kumar, the offence was converted under Section 302 IPC. The cause of death has been assigned as ante-mortem injuries by the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination. On the basis of death information the offence under Section 302 IPC was added vide making appropriate entry in the G. D., which has been proved by the formal witness. There is unanimity in the testimony of witnesses regarding the motive alleged in the FIR. On the basis of death information the offence under Section 302 IPC was added vide making appropriate entry in the G. D., which has been proved by the formal witness. There is unanimity in the testimony of witnesses regarding the motive alleged in the FIR. Even presuming for argument sake PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 as chance witnesses, their testimony appears credible, reliable and trustworthy and there is no legal impediment in placing reliance upon their testimonies. There is complete coherence in the inter se testimonies of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 on the point of time, place and date of occurrence, motive of occurrence, manner of occurrence and accused Dinesh by whom the offence has been committed. 42. We are of the considered opinion that there is no legal impediment in placing reliance upon the testimonies of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. Presuming for argument sake the minor contradictions in their testimonies will have no impact because, the chances of minor omissions or minor contradictions cannot be ruled out in testimony of a natural witness. Any omission or contradictions, which do not corrode the credibility of a witness, has no impact in the eyes of law. 43. So far as the aspect of enmity regarding the purchase of land with PW 1 and running of floor or rice mill and regarding dampening or vibrations coming by using of the said mill etc are concerned, no such incident has ever been reported to the competent authorities. In absence of any evidence in this regard, no notice can be taken upon this aspect of the matter. 44. So far as the presence of eye-witnesses PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 is concerned, the name of PW 1 finds place in the medico legal examination report. He has dictated the FIR to PW 2 and the same was subsequently, sent to police station by PW 3. All these facts are indicative of presence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 at the place of occurrence on the relevant date and time. 45. He has dictated the FIR to PW 2 and the same was subsequently, sent to police station by PW 3. All these facts are indicative of presence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 at the place of occurrence on the relevant date and time. 45. If for argument sake it is presumed that there has been some omission by the I.O. in conducting the investigation, even considering the omissions to be defect in investigation, it will have no impact in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2015) 1 SCC (Crl.) 664. 46. Concluding the arguments it has been submitted on behalf of accused-appellant that there was only one assault by knife upon the person of deceased and one assault would attract Section 304 (2) IPC. In the instant case, this argument cannot be attributed much importance in view of the fact that the genesis of the incident is on preceding date of assault when the deceased slapped the accused for which he felt insulted and threatened for life to the deceased and on the next date he has committed assault, which resulted into his death. In such a circumstance the argument of learned counsel for the accused-appellant cannot be sustained. 47. The learned Court below has not committed any error or misreading of evidence. It has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and has correctly recorded the finding of conviction against the accused-appellant Dinesh. All the aspects of the case have properly been taken care by the learned Court below. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Court below is reasoned and justified on the basis of evidence on record. No interference is required in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Court below. 48. In view of aforesaid reasons and discussions, the judgment and order dated 11.2.1986 passed by the learned Court below convicting and sentencing the accused person-appellant Dinesh, is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 49. Convicted accused-appellant namely Dinesh is informed to be on bail. 50. Let the lower Court’s record be transmitted back to the Court concerned forthwith alongwith a copy of this judgment and order for necessary compliance. The learned trial Court is directed to ensure the arrest of convicted accused-appellant Dinesh so, that he may undergo the sentence as awarded by the learned Court below.