Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 301 (HP)

Ayodhya Singh v. State of H. P.

2015-04-08

P.S.RANA, SANJAY KAROL

body2015
JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur HP in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2006 titled State Vs. Ayodhya Singh and another decided on dated 2.12.2008. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 11.12.2005 at about 10.00 AM at village Gopalpur Police Station Jhakri Tehsil Rampur Bushahr District Shimla HP accused persons committed murder of Ramesh Chand son of Sh Sidhu Ram resident of village Dobi Tehsil Rampur intentionally. It is alleged by prosecution that house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh is situated at village Gopalpur and co-accused Ayodhya Singh has two sisters namely Rekha and Seema. It is alleged by prosecution that marriage of the sister of co-accused Ayodhya Singh namely Rekha was fixed on dated 11.12.2005 and deceased Ramesh Chand was called for lightning arrangement and decoration of the house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh and Sh Tek Singh was also called to help deceased Ramesh Chand. It is alleged by prosecution that PW3 Tek Singh was helping deceased Ramesh Chand for lightning arrangement and mother and sister of co-accused Ayodhya Singh were also present there. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter telephone call was received by PW3 Tek Singh and he went to attend the telephone call and when he returned he found that deceased Ramesh Chand was having cut upon his body and blood was oozing out from his neck and he was dead. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter information was delivered at Police Station Zhakri and ASI Jawahar Singh proceeded to the spot and noticed the dead body of deceased Ramesh Chand covered with a bed sheet lying in the compound of co-accused Ayodhya Singh. It is alleged by prosecution that statement Ext PW1/A of Sh Vinod Kumar brother-in-law of deceased under Section 154 Cr.PC recorded and thereafter same was sent to Police Station through Sh Khem Chand for recording of FIR. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter body of deceased was photographed through PW11 Krishan Lal and photographs are Ext PW11/A to Ext PW11/C and negatives are Ext PW11/D to Ext PW11/F. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW12 Jawahar Singh prepared inquest reports Ext PW12/A and Ext PW12/B and preserved blood stains. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter body of deceased was photographed through PW11 Krishan Lal and photographs are Ext PW11/A to Ext PW11/C and negatives are Ext PW11/D to Ext PW11/F. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW12 Jawahar Singh prepared inquest reports Ext PW12/A and Ext PW12/B and preserved blood stains. It is alleged by prosecution that specimen seal was drawn on a separate piece of cloth Ext PW2/1 and memo regarding preserving of blood are Ext.PW4/A and Ext PW4/B. It is alleged by prosecution that sample of soil from the spot was also obtained and thereafter PW12 Jawahar Singh Investigating Officer also filed application Ext PW5/A to the medical officer for conducting post mortem of deceased Ramesh Chand. It is alleged by prosecution that spot map Ext PW12/C was also prepared. It is alleged by prosecution that statement of accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1872 was recorded and sword i.e. weapon of attack was recovered as per disclosure statement made by co-accused Ayodhya Singh. It is further alleged by prosecution that trouser was kept by co-accused Ayodhya Singh in a heap of clothes in a kitchen and the same was recovered in pursuance of disclosure statement. It is further alleged by prosecution that sample seals Ext PW2/H and Ext PW2/1 also obtained. It is further alleged by prosecution that as per opinion of PW5 Dr.Vishal Bhandari deceased Ramesh Chand had died due to head injury leading to coma and death. It is further alleged by prosecution that co-accused Ayodhya Singh and his family belongs to Rajput caste and deceased Ramesh Chand belonged to Scheduled Caste. It is further alleged by prosecution that co-accused Ayodhya Singh noticed that deceased Ramesh Chand was chattering secretly with the sister of co-accused Ayodhya Singh which was the cause of murder of deceased Ramesh Chand. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 11.12.2005 PW12 ASI Jawahar Singh deposited three parcels sealed with seal impression ‘H’ containing sample of soil, blood stained soil, grass and blood sample of the neck of deceased Ramesh Chand with PW7 MHC Krishan Lal. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 11.12.2005 PW12 ASI Jawahar Singh deposited three parcels sealed with seal impression ‘H’ containing sample of soil, blood stained soil, grass and blood sample of the neck of deceased Ramesh Chand with PW7 MHC Krishan Lal. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter on dated 13.12.2005 Inspector Suresh Kumar handed over two parcels sealed with seal ‘M’ and ‘A’ containing three pieces of sword and trouser of co-accused Ayodhya Singh to PW7 MHC Krishan Lal with direction to deposit the same in the office of FSL Junga vide RC No.126 of 2005. It is alleged by prosecution that copies of rapat No.7 dated 11.12.2005, rapat No.19 dated 14.12.2005 and rapat No.34 dated 14.12.2005 are Ext PW10/A to Ext PW10/C. 3. Learned trial Court convicted co-accused Ayodhya Singh under Section 302 IPC and acquitted co-accused Seema under Section 201 IPC. 4. Prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses in support of its case: S.No. Name of Witnesses PW1 Vinod kumar PW2 Sabir Dass PW3 Tek Singh PW4 Lobu Ram PW5 Dr.Vishal Bhandan PW6 Kewal Ram PW7 Krishan Lal PW8 Om Prakash PW9 Satpal PW10 Golab singh` PW11 Krishan Lal PW12 Jawahar singh PW13 Suresh kumar 5. Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case:- Sr.No Deseription Ext PW1/A Statement of Vinod kumar under Section 154 Cases Referred : PC Ext PW2/A & Ext PW2/B Statements of co-accused ayodhya singh U/S 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 Ext PW2/C & Ext PW2/D -do- Ext PW2/E Sketch map of piece of sword. Ext PW2/F Seizure memo of piece of sword Ext P1 to Ext P3 Ext PW2/G Memo qua recovery of trouser. Ext PW4/A, Ext PW4/B & Ext PW4/C Memos qua taking blood in cotton from neck of deceased, memo qua recovery of blood stained soil, memo taking of sample of soil in match box. Ext PW2/H & Ext PW2/I Sample of seals A&M. Ext PW5/A Application filed for conducting post mortem. Ext PW5/B Post mortem report. Ext PW5/C Final opinion of Dr.Vishal Bhandari. Ext PW6/A Jamabandi copy Ext PW6/B Field book of spot. Ext PW6/C Receipt issued by Patwari Ext PW7/A Extract of malkhana register Ext PW7/B Register of malkhana Ext PW7/C Copy of road certificate Ext PW10/A & Ext PW10/B Copy of rapat rojnamcha No.7 and 19. Ext PW5/B Post mortem report. Ext PW5/C Final opinion of Dr.Vishal Bhandari. Ext PW6/A Jamabandi copy Ext PW6/B Field book of spot. Ext PW6/C Receipt issued by Patwari Ext PW7/A Extract of malkhana register Ext PW7/B Register of malkhana Ext PW7/C Copy of road certificate Ext PW10/A & Ext PW10/B Copy of rapat rojnamcha No.7 and 19. Ext PW11/A to Ext PW11/C Photographs Ext PW11/D to Ext PW11/F Negatives of photos Ext PW12/A & Inquest reports Ext PW12/B Ext PW12/C Site plan Ext PW12/D Statement of Tek Singh Ext PW13/A Copy of FIR Ext PW13/B Spot map Ext PW13/C` Application filed by M.O. PHC Gopalpur. Ext PW13/D, Ext PW13/E & Ext PW13/F Reports of Forensic Science Laboratory Junga (HP) 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court convicted person filed present appeal. 7. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and also perused entire record carefully. 8. Points for determination in present appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court caused miscarriage of justice to the appellant. 9. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 9.1 PW1 Vinod Kumar has stated that he was running chicken shop at village Dobi and his sister was married to deceased Ramesh Chand in that village. He has stated that on dated 11.12.2005 when he came to open his shop in the morning at about 9 AM he was informed by one Mangal Sain that his brother-in-law deceased Ramesh Chand was fell at village Gopalpur and was lying there. He has stated that village Gopalpur is situated at a distance of about half kilometer from village Dobi and thereafter he went to village Gopalpur on scooter. He has stated that deceased Ramesh Chand was lying in the court yard of co-accused Ayodhya Singh and a bed sheet was lying on his body. He has stated that when he removed bed sheet then he saw injuries on the head and neck of deceased Ramesh Chand. He has stated that blood was oozing out. He has stated that deceased Ramesh Chand had gone to the house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh for work of decoration of lightning and music system in marriage of sister of co-accused Ayodhya Singh. He has stated that blood was oozing out. He has stated that deceased Ramesh Chand had gone to the house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh for work of decoration of lightning and music system in marriage of sister of co-accused Ayodhya Singh. He has stated that 3/4 ladies were sitting near the dead body of deceased Ramesh Chand. He has stated that thereafter he came back to close his shop and then again went to the spot. He has stated that his statement Ext PW1/A was recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC. 9.2 PW2 Sh Sabir Dass has stated that on dated 13.12.2005 he remained associated in the investigation of the case. He has stated that co-accused Ayodhya Singh had given disclosure statement that pieces of sword through which he had killed deceased Ramesh Chand was kept by him and he could get the same recovered. He has stated that disclosure statement Ext PW2/A bears his signature. He has stated that co-accused Ayodhya Singh had also given disclosure statement about trouser which he was wearing on the day of incident. He has stated that disclosure statement Ext PW2/B bears his signature and the signatures of co-accused Ayodhya Singh and other witnesses. He has stated that thereafter co-accused Ayodhya Singh led police in the upper storey of his house where three pieces of sword were recovered. He has stated that sketch maps Ext.PW2/C, Ext PW2/D and Ext PW2/E were prepared which bears his signature and the signatures of the witnesses and the same were sealed in a parcel of cloth. He has stated that thereafter seizure memo Ext PW2/F was prepared which bears his signature and the signatures of the witnesses. He has stated that three pieces of sword are Ext P1 to Ext P3. He has stated that trouser was also recovered as per disclosure statement of co-accused Ayodhya Singh which was kept in the heap of clothes. He has stated that trouser was stained with blood. He has stated that trouser was packed in a piece of cloth and thereafter the same was sealed in a parcel. He has stated that trouser Ext P4 is the same which was took into possession vide memo Ext PW2/G which bears his signature. He has stated that Investigating Officer has also took sample of seals Ext.PW2/H and Ext PW2/I which bears his signature. He has stated that trouser Ext P4 is the same which was took into possession vide memo Ext PW2/G which bears his signature. He has stated that Investigating Officer has also took sample of seals Ext.PW2/H and Ext PW2/I which bears his signature. He has stated that he has no relation with deceased Ramesh Chand. He has stated that he is agriculturist. He has denied suggestion that he was called by police official at police station Jhakri from his shop. He denied suggestion that his signature obtained upon blank papers by police official. He denied suggestion that police had kept three pieces of sword and trouser on the table in police station when his signatures were obtained. He denied suggestion that he did not visit the spot. He denied suggestion that he used to drive van illegally for taxi purpose. He denied suggestion that he had linked with police official. He denied suggestion that co-accused Ayodhya Singh did not make any disclosure statement. He denied suggestion that no recovery was effected as per disclosure statement given by co-accused Ayodhya Singh. 9.3 PW3 Tek Singh has stated that co-accused Ayodhya Singh is his uncle. He has stated that his house is situated about 30 metres from his house. He has stated that co-accused Ayodhya Singh has two sisters namely Rekha and Seema. He has stated that marriage of Rekha was to be solemnized on dated 11.12.2005 and deceased Ramesh Chand was called to perform the work of decoration of lightning and music. He has stated that he was called by co-accused Ayodhya Singh to help deceased Ramesh Chand. He has stated that he was helping deceased Ramesh Chand to fix the gate and lightning work and mother and sisters of co-accused Ayodhya Singh were also present there. He has stated that in the meanwhile he received telephone call and thereafter he went to his house. He has stated that when he came back from his house he saw that there was cut on the neck of deceased Ramesh Chand and blood was oozing out from his neck and he was dead. He has denied suggestion that Seema had washed sword in order to remove the blood stains. He has stated that Rekha was also present there and she was weeping. He has denied suggestion that Rekha had slapped deceased Ramesh Chand in anger. He has denied suggestion that Seema had washed sword in order to remove the blood stains. He has stated that Rekha was also present there and she was weeping. He has denied suggestion that Rekha had slapped deceased Ramesh Chand in anger. He has stated that incident took place at about 9.45 AM. 9.4 PW4 Lobu Ram has stated that about two years back he had gone to Dobi in the house of his sister and thereafter he went to village Gopalpur and came to know that a person had fell down. He has stated that Investigating Officer took blood from the neck of deceased Ramesh Chand with cotton and sealed the same in match box vide memo Ext PW4/A. He has stated that police officials also took into possession blood stained grass and soil and same was also sealed in a parcel. He has stated that when he reached at the spot 40/50 persons were present. He has stated that police conducted proceedings for two hours. 9.5 PW5 Dr.Vishal Bhandari has stated that he was posted Medical Officer Incharge PHC Gopalpur. He has stated that there was mortuary house at MGMSC Khaneri. He has stated that a written request was received from Investigating Officer to conduct post mortem of dead body of deceased Ramesh Chand son of Sh Sidhu Ram. He has stated that he conducted post mortem on dated 12.12.2005 and after examination he observed incised wound on the back of neck spindle shape one in number, clotted blood was present around the wound of deceased Ramesh Chand. He has stated that size was 10x4 Cm.x muscle deep, margins were clean cut, well defined and beveling was present with tailing. He has stated that there was incised wound in left cheek one in number spindle shaped, 6cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep margins clean cut well defined and clotted blood were present around the wound. He has stated that in dorsum of right hand there was incised wound 4 cm skin deep clean cut well defined and there was clotted blood around the wound. He has stated that there was head injury and on opening the scalp he observed big hematoma at left temporal parietal region 4 inches x 8 inches extending up to sagittal suture and posterior was up to occipit. He has stated that there was head injury and on opening the scalp he observed big hematoma at left temporal parietal region 4 inches x 8 inches extending up to sagittal suture and posterior was up to occipit. He has stated that deceased Ramesh Chand had died due to head injury leading to coma and death. He has stated that articles viscera, blood sample, clothes and saline sample were handed over to the police. He has stated that injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 could be caused with sword pieces Ext P1 to Ext P3. He has stated that injury No.4 could be caused to a person if he falls while standing on a stool and if stool is suddenly removed by some other person. He has stated that post mortem report Ext PW5/B bears his signature. He has stated that injury mentioned in the neck could be caused only by giving a blow with sharp edged weapon. He has stated that injuries mentioned in the post mortem are possible with pieces of sword Ext P1 to Ext P3. He has denied suggestion that injury No.1 mentioned in the post mortem was received by deceased Ramesh Chand when he fell on the hard sharp edged object. 9.6. PW6 Kewal Ram Patwari has stated that on dated 9.1.2006 he prepared Jamabandi Ext PW6/A and tatima Ext PW6/B on the direction of Station House Officer and also issued receipt Ext PW6/C. 9.7 PW7 Krishan Lal has stated that he remained posted in Police Station Jhakri during the year 2005. He has stated that on dated 11.12.2005 ASI Jawahar Singh handed over to him three parcels sealed with seal ‘H’ in which parcel was containing sample of soil. He has stated that second parcel was containing blood stained soil and grass and third sample was containing blood sample of the neck of deceased Ramesh Chand. He has stated that thereafter on dated 13.12.2005 Inspector Suresh Kumar handed over to him two parcels sealed with seal ‘M’ and ‘A’. He has started that one sample was having three pieces of sword and one parcel was having trouser of co-accused Ayodhya Singh. He has stated that on dated 13.12.2005 Constable Satpal deposited with him one sealed parcel with seal of MGH/RB and blood sample of deceased Ramesh Chand. He has stated that jar was also deposited containing viscera of deceased. He has started that one sample was having three pieces of sword and one parcel was having trouser of co-accused Ayodhya Singh. He has stated that on dated 13.12.2005 Constable Satpal deposited with him one sealed parcel with seal of MGH/RB and blood sample of deceased Ramesh Chand. He has stated that jar was also deposited containing viscera of deceased. He has stated that he sent parcels through Constable Om Parkash to FSL Junga vide RC No.126 of 2005. He has stated that he deposited receipts with him. He has stated that parcels remained intact when the same remained in his custody. He has stated that copy of RC is Ext PW7/C. 9.8 PW8 HHC Om Parkash has stated that he remained posted in Police Station Jhakri during the year 2005. He has stated that on dated 16.12.2005 he handed over 11 sealed parcels vide RC No. 126 of 2005 and thereafter he deposited the same in FSL Junga. He has stated that he handed over receipt to MHC Police Station Jhakari. He has stated that parcels remained intact in his custody. 9.9 PW9 Constable Satpal has stated that he remained posted in Police Station Jhakri during the year 2005. He has stated that on dated 13.12.2005 he handed over six parcels sealed with seal MGH/RB to MHC Police Station Jhakri. He has stated that sealed parcels remained intact during his custody. 9.10 PW10 Constable Gulab Singh has stated that during the year 2005 he remained posted in Police Station Jhakri. He has stated that he also brought the requisite record. He has stated that rapat No.7 dated 11.12.2005 Ext PW10/A, rapat No. 19 dated 14.12.2005 Ext PW10/B and rapat No.34 dated 14.12.2005 Ext PW10/C are correct as per original record. 9.11 PW11 Krishan Lal has stated that he was working as Photographer and running shop in the name of Krishna Studio at Dobi. He has stated that on dated 10.12.2005 at the instance of police he took photographs of the dead body of deceased Ramesh Chand Ext PW11/A to Ext PW11/C. He has stated that negatives of photographs are Ext PW11/D to Ext PW11/F. 9.12. PW12 ASI Jawahar Singh has stated that during the period 2002 to 2007 he remained posted in Police Station Jhakri. PW12 ASI Jawahar Singh has stated that during the period 2002 to 2007 he remained posted in Police Station Jhakri. He has stated that on dated 11.12.2005 at about 12.20 PM he received a telephonic information from Tikkam Ram resident of Gopalpur that a decorator had died and report was recorded at Police Station and he proceeded to the spot and he noticed that a dead body of deceased Ramesh Chand was lying in the compound of co-accused Ayodhya Singh and was covered with a bed sheet. He has stated that Vinod Kumar brother-in-law of deceased Ramesh Chand was present at the spot and he recorded his statement Ext PW1/A under Section 154 Cr.PC. He has stated that statement was sent through Constable Khem Dass to Police Station and thereafter he obtained photographs of dead body of deceased Ramesh Chand. He has stated that he prepared inquest reports Ext PW12/A and Ext PW12/B which bears his signature. He has stated that he preserved blood stains which were lying on the grass and the soil in separate plastic boxes at the spot. He has stated that he took into possession blood which was on the neck of deceased in separate plastic boxes and thereafter boxes were sealed with seal impression ‘H’. He has stated that specimen seal was also drawn on a separate piece of cloth Ext PW2/1 and the memos about preserving of blood also prepared. He has stated that he had given application Ext PW5/A to Medical Officer for conducting autopsy on the dead body of deceased Ramesh Chand. He has stated that he prepared site plan Ext PW12/C which bears his signature. He has stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses. He has stated that he took into possession Jamabandi Ext PW6/A and Tatima Ext PW6/B from Patwari. He has stated that photographs are Ext PW11/A to Ext PW11/C and negatives of photographs are Ext PW11/D to Ext PW11/F. He has stated that thereafter investigation file was handed over to SHO Suresh Kumar. He has stated that samples were deposited with MHC. He has denied suggestion that shuttering was lying at the spot. He denied suggestion that deceased Ramesh Chand fell from the roof upon shuttering material and suffered injuries. He denied suggestion that he has recorded the statement according to his own convenience. He has stated that samples were deposited with MHC. He has denied suggestion that shuttering was lying at the spot. He denied suggestion that deceased Ramesh Chand fell from the roof upon shuttering material and suffered injuries. He denied suggestion that he has recorded the statement according to his own convenience. He denied suggestion that he did not preserve blood sample from the grass and soil. He denied suggestion that signatures of witnesses have been obtained at Police Station. He denied suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. 9.13 PW13 Inspector Suresh Kumar has stated that he was posted as Station House Officer Police Station Jhakri w.e.f. April 2003 to May 2006. He has stated that he received statement Ext PW1/A and thereafter he recorded FIR Ext. PW13/A. He has stated that preliminary investigation was conducted by ASI Jawahar Singh. He has stated that co-accused Ayodhya Singh has made disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that pieces of sword were kept by him and he could get the same recovered. He has stated that disclosure statement was reduced into writing. He has stated that thereafter co-accused Ayodhya Singh took him to the place where he had kept the sword pieces in the middle storey of the house. He has stated that he also prepared sketch map Ext PW2/C to Ext PW2/E. He has stated that sword pieces are Ext P1 to Ext P3. He has stated that trouser which was kept in the heap of clothes was also recovered as per disclosure statement given by co-accused Ayodhya Singh. He has stated that he also prepared spot map Ext PW13/B and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He has stated that he also obtained post mortem report Ext PW5/B. He has stated that co-accused Ayodhya Singh had noticed that deceased Ramesh Chand was chattering secretly with his sister. He has stated that thereafter completion of the investigation he filed challan. He has stated that dead body was lying in the compound of co-accused Ayodhya Singh. He has denied suggestion that broken pieces of sword were kept in the heap of garbage. He denied suggestion that sword was old. He denied suggestion that deceased Ramesh Chand had died due to fall from the roof of the house. He has stated that dead body was lying in the compound of co-accused Ayodhya Singh. He has denied suggestion that broken pieces of sword were kept in the heap of garbage. He denied suggestion that sword was old. He denied suggestion that deceased Ramesh Chand had died due to fall from the roof of the house. He denied suggestion that dead body was lifted from the street and was kept in the compound by co-accused Ayodhya Singh. He denied suggestion that while lifting the dead body of deceased Ramesh Chand trouser of co-accused Ayodhya Singh was smeared with blood. He denied suggestion that sword and trouser were not recovered as per disclosure statement given by co-accused Ayodhya Singh. He denied suggestion that memos were got signed from the witnesses at the later stage. He denied suggestion that deceased had sustained head injury when he fell from the roof of the building. 10. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accused did not examine any defence witness. Accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that recovery of the sword pieces have not been connected with the appellant and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Disclosure statement of co-accused Ayodhya Singh Ext PW2/A is proved on record as per testimony of PW2 Sabir Dass. PW2 Sabir Dass is the marginal witness of the disclosure statement given by co-accused Ayodhya Singh under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. PW2 has stated in positive, cogent and reliable manner that co-accused Ayodhya Singh had given disclosure statement in his presence that he could recover the pieces of sword which was weapon of attack upon deceased Ramesh Chand. In pursuance to disclosure statement given by co-accused Ayodhya Singh three pieces of sword Ext P1 to Ext P3 were recovered and recovery memo proved as per testimony of PW2 Sabir Dass. PW2 Sabir Dass has stated in positive manner that three pieces of sword were recovered in his presence as per disclosure statement given by co-accused Ayodhya Singh. Hence it is held that co-accused Ayodhya Singh was connected with three pieces of sword used for the murder of deceased Ramesh Chand. PW2 Sabir Dass has stated in positive manner that three pieces of sword were recovered in his presence as per disclosure statement given by co-accused Ayodhya Singh. Hence it is held that co-accused Ayodhya Singh was connected with three pieces of sword used for the murder of deceased Ramesh Chand. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW2 Sabir Dass has hostile animus against co-accused Ayodhya Singh at any point of time. 12. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that even as per medical evidence no offence of murder is proved against co-accused Ayodhya Singh is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully considered the testimony of medical officer PW5 Dr. Vishal Bhandari who has conducted post mortem of deceased Ramesh Chand. As per post mortem report deceased Ramesh Chand had sustained incised wound on the back of neck, incised wound on the left cheek, incised would on the right hand and had also sustained head injury. As per testimony of PW5 Dr. Vishal Bhandari deceased Ramesh Chand had died due to head injury leading to coma and death. PW5 Dr. Vishal Bhandari has stated in positive manner that injury upon the neck of deceased Ramesh Chand could be caused only by way of sharp edged weapon i.e. pieces of sword Ext P1 to Ext P3. PW5 Dr. Vishal Bhandari has denied suggestion that injury of neck sustained by deceased Ramesh Chand could be possible if deceased would have fallen from the storey of house while performing lightning work. Testimony of PW5 Dr. Vishal Bhandari is also trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. There is reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW5 Dr.Vishal Bhandari. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW5 has hostile animus against co-accused Ayodhya Singh at any point of time. 13. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that motive is not proved on record in the present case and no witness has stated that deceased Ramesh Chand was chattering with the sister of co-accused Ayodhya Singh and on this ground appeal filed by the appellant be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that deceased Ramesh Chand had died in the four walls of residential house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh when he was performing decoration work of lightning. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that deceased Ramesh Chand had died due to lightning shock. There is no positive, cogent and reliable evidence on record in order to prove that deceased Ramesh Chand had died due to fall fro m the storey of the building while performing lightning work. On the contrary it is proved on record that in the four walls of residential house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh when the deceased was performing lightning work in the marriage of the sister of co-accused Ayodhya Singh deceased Ramesh Chand had sustained three incised injuries upon his neck, upon his left cheek, upon his right hand and had also sustained head injury upon occipatal part. It is proved on record that thereafter immediately dead body of deceased Ramesh Chand was found in the residential house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh. It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased had sustained four injuries upon his body with pieces of sword Ext P1 to Ext P3. Hence chain of circumstantial evidence against co-accused Ayodhya Singh is proved beyond reasonable doubt in the present case. There is no evidence on record that some third person entered into the residential house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh and caused injuries upon deceased Ramesh Chand. Hence chain of circumstantial evidence against co-accused Ayodhya Singh is proved beyond reasonable doubt in the present case. There is no evidence on record that some third person entered into the residential house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh and caused injuries upon deceased Ramesh Chand. It is held that in view of the fact that deceased had died in the four walls of residential house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh and in view of the fact that deceased had sustained four injuries in the four walls of residential house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh and in view of the fact that no third person entered into the residential house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh and in view of the fact that Investigating Officer has stated in positive manner that co-accused Ayodhya Singh has caused the murder of deceased Ramesh Chand because deceased was chattering with the sister of co-accused Ayodhya Singh in the residential house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh and in view of the fact that deceased was belonging to scheduled caste and in view of the fact that co-accused Ayodhya Singh is belonging to Rajput caste the above stated facts clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt that co-accused Ayodhya Singh had committed murder of deceased Ramesh Chand in four walls of his residential house. Chain of circumstantial evidence is completed in the present case beyond reasonable doubt against co-accused Ayodhya Singh. 14. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that sword pieces Ext P1 to Ext P3 is also not proved by the prosecution is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the testimony of PW2 Sabir Dass and recovery of pieces of sword Ext P1 to Ext P3 proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW2 Sabir Dass. Testimony of PW2 Sabir Dass is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. 15. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that even recovery of blood clotted trouser belonging to co-accused Ayodhya Singh is not proved on record beyond reasonable doubt is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that disclosure statement of co-accused Ayodhya Singh relating to trouser worn by co-accused Ayodhya Singh at the time of incident is proved as per testimony of PW2 Sabir Dass. It is proved on record that disclosure statement of co-accused Ayodhya Singh relating to trouser worn by co-accused Ayodhya Singh at the time of incident is proved as per testimony of PW2 Sabir Dass. It is proved on record that blood clotted trouser was recovered in pursuance to disclosure statement given by co-accused Ayodhya Singh. Testimony of PW2 relating to disclosure statement and relating to recovery of trouser is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. 16. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that no independent person of the locality was present at the time of disclosure statement given by co-accused Ayodhya Singh and on this ground appeal filed by the appellant be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. In the present case it is proved on record that PW2 Sabir Dass has no relation with deceased Ramesh Chand. PW2 Sabir Dass is the resident of Jhakri and deceased Ramesh Chand was resident of Dobi. It was held in case reported in 1999 (1) JLT 49 titled State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rumi that where marginal witness of disclosure statement was resident of another place even then his evidence regarding recovery of weapons and clothes could not be discarded. 17. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court is based upon surmises and conjectures is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court. The judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court is based upon positive, cogent and reliable testimony of oral witnesses i.e. PW1 Vinod Kumar, PW2 Sabir Dass, PW3 Tek Singh, PW4 Lobhu Ram, PW5 Dr. We have carefully perused the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court. The judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court is based upon positive, cogent and reliable testimony of oral witnesses i.e. PW1 Vinod Kumar, PW2 Sabir Dass, PW3 Tek Singh, PW4 Lobhu Ram, PW5 Dr. Vishal Bhandari, PW6 Kewal Ram, PW7 Krishan Lal, PW8 Om Parkash, PW9 Sat Pal, PW10 Gulab Singh, PW11 Krishan Lal, PW12 Jawahar Singh and PW13 Suresh Kumar and as per documentary evidence placed on record i.e. disclosure statement, sketch map, recovery of three pieces of sword, recovery of trouser and as per recovery of blood from the neck of deceased Ramesh Chand and as per recovery of blood clotted soil and grass and as per post mortem report placed on record and as per copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-03 placed on record and as per field book placed on record and as per extract of malkhana register placed on record and as per road certificate placed on record and as per inquest report placed on record and as per photographs placed on record and as per site plan placed on record and as per chemical analyst report placed on record. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that there is material contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the testimony of prosecution witnesses. There is no material contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses which goes to the root of the case. In the present case the incident took place on 11.12.2005 and testimony of the prosecution witness was recorded on 14.2.2008, 15.2.2008, 11.1.2008, 15.2.2008, 15.3.2008, 22.5.2008 and 28.5.2008. It is held that minor contradictions are bound to come in the present case when testimonies of the witnesses are recorded after a gap of sufficient time. 19. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that deceased Ramesh Chand had died due to fall from upper storey of the building when he was performing the work of lightning and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. 19. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that deceased Ramesh Chand had died due to fall from upper storey of the building when he was performing the work of lightning and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. The plea of appellant that deceased Ramesh Chand had died when he was performing the lightning work in the upper storey of the building is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (Assertion made without proof). Appellant did not examine any witness who were residing inside the four walls of the residential house at the time of incident in order to prove that deceased had died by way of fall from the upper storey of the residential house when he was performing lightning work in the marriage ceremony of the sister of appellant. 20. It was held in case reported AIR 1985 S.C 416 titled State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Sagar Yadav and others that except in cases covered by five exceptions mentioned in Section 300 culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. In the present case co-accused Ayodhya Singh did not plead any defence of exceptions. In the present case it is proved on record that injuries were inflicted upon deceased Ramesh Chand by co-accused Ayodhya Singh upon vital part of body when deceased was working in the four walls of residential house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh. It was held in case reported in AIR 1972 SC 2574 titled Chahat Khan Vs. The State of Haryana that when the injury was inflicted on the vital part of the body by sharp edged weapon the inference would be drawn that intention was to kill deceased by the culprit. It was held in case reported in AIR 1976 SC 1519 titled Jayaraj Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu that intent and knowledge both postulate the existence of positive mental attitude. It was held in case reported in AIR 1958 SC 672 titled B.N.Srikantiah Vs. Mysore State that size and nature of the weapon and the manner in which weapon was used must be considered in arriving at a finding on the guilt of the accused. It was held in case reported in AIR 1958 SC 672 titled B.N.Srikantiah Vs. Mysore State that size and nature of the weapon and the manner in which weapon was used must be considered in arriving at a finding on the guilt of the accused. In the present case the accused had given disclosure statement under Section 27 relating to pieces of sword and blood clotted trouser and same are proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case murder of the deceased was committed inside the four walls of residential house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh when deceased Ramesh Chand was performing decoration work of electricity and there was no possibility of any third person entering into the four walls of residential house of co-accused Ayodhya Singh at the time of commission of criminal offence. It was held in case reported in AIR 1973 SC 944 Jose Vs. the State of Kerala that conviction could be given on the testimony of single witness in criminal case if testimony of single witness is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. Also see Latest HLJ 2003 HP 541 titled State of HP Vs. Om Parkash. Even as per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 no particular number of witnesses shall be required for the proof of any fact. It was held in case reported in c that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the Court. It was held in case reported in 1997 Cri.L.J 1873 titled Raja versus State of Delhi that reliance could be based on solitary statement of a witness if the Court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is true and correct version of the case of the prosecution. It was held in case reported in AIR 2003 SC 854 titled Lalu Manjhi and another Vs. State of Jharkhand that court may classify the oral testimony into three categories (1) Wholly reliable (2) Wholly un-reliable (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It was held that in the first two categories there would be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of single witness. 21. It was held in case reported in 2013 Cri.L.J 2040 titled Prakash Vs. It was held that in the first two categories there would be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of single witness. 21. It was held in case reported in 2013 Cri.L.J 2040 titled Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan Apex Court that there are five golden principles in case of circumstantial evidence.(1) That circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established (2) That facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.(3) That circumstances should be of a conclusive nature.(4) That chain of circumstantial evidence should be completed. (5)That innocence of accused should be ruled out. It is was held in case reported in 2013 (14) SCC 434 titled Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Haryana Apex Court that time gap between last seen and death of deceased should be so small that possibility of any other person being author of the crime should become impossible. In the present case also the time gap when the deceased was last seen in the company of appellant alive and when deceased was found dead was so small that possibility of any other persons being author of the crime has become impossible. 22. In view of the above stated facts and case law cited supra it is held that learned trial Court has properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It is held that no miscarriage of justice is caused to the appellant. Judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court affirmed. Appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.