JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. PW4 Jotar Dass set the criminal law into motion by filing the complaint on 11.3.2009, which was addressed to the Naib Tehsildar, Jakhnidhar, District Tehri Garhwal, enumerating the facts that he is the resident of Patti Lamridhar, Tehsil Jakhanidhar, District Tehri Garhwal. Talks for marriage of his daughter Km. Kusum were on about four years ago. Accused Dinesh Lal used to come to his house. The proposal was that appellant would be married to informant’s daughter Ms. Kusum but when the informant, on the basis of complaint received by him, realized that the accused is not a good person, he did not permit his daughter to marry the appellant. Annoyed with the same, appellant came to the jungle where the informant’s daughter had gone to fetch the grass. His daughter was cutting grass. The other villagers, namely, Smt. Ram Maya W/o Ram Dass and Smt. Bhado Devi W/o Late Kamal Dass, and others, were also present in the forest. The accused came with a sickle by which he inflicted a blow on the abdomen, below heart, of his daughter. Informant’s daughter sustained grievous injuries, as a consequence of which, she died. Appellant (in repentance) also inflicted blows with sickle below his own navel, as a consequence of which, his intestines also came out. Informant was informed by his mother and thereafter, he lodged the complaint Ex.Ka-1 with Naib Tehsildar, Jakhanidhar. 2. Investigation was conducted by the revenue police. After investigation, charge-sheet for the offence of Sections 302/309 IPC r/w Section 4/25 of Arms Act was filed by the Investigating Officer against the appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and the prosecution opened its case, Charges for the offence of Section 302/309 IPC and one punishable u/s 4/25 Arms Act, were framed against the accused (appellant herein), who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. As many as nine prosecution witnesses were examined, namely, PW1 Smt. Bhadi Devi, PW2 Smt. Ram Maya Devi, PW3 Smt. Shanti Devi, PW4 Jotar Dass, PW5 Madan Singh, PW6 Dr. P.K. Bandil, PW7 Balwant Singh, PW8 Ramesh Das and PW9 Raghubir Singh. 4. Statement of the accused was recorded. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused has stated that he was working in Raj Resort in Bombay. His engagement with Kusum had been organized. P.K. Bandil, PW7 Balwant Singh, PW8 Ramesh Das and PW9 Raghubir Singh. 4. Statement of the accused was recorded. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused has stated that he was working in Raj Resort in Bombay. His engagement with Kusum had been organized. Kusum wanted to marry him and wanted to go to Bombay along with him. On 10.3.2009, he had gone to the house of Kusum. He had stayed there for three days. Father of Kusum wanted to marry Kusum with him. He asked him to bring some mediator. He had come at the house of his sister. On 15.2.2009, taking his sister and brother-in-law, he went to the house of Kusum. There, her brother met who refused for the marriage. On 11.3.2009, on being called over phone by Kusum, he reached at the field 25 meters before the house of Kusum, where she met. After a short while, Ramesh came having a sickle and he took out mangalsutra from the neck of Kusum and threw it away, which is with him. He tried to kill him with sickle; then he held the sickle whereby his two fingers were cut. Then Ramesh wanted to kill him by sickle; thereafter, Kusum intervened due to which sickle struck her. She fell down and then Ramesh struck sickle on him due to which he fell down after becoming unconscious. After 3-4 days, he regained senses in the hospital at Dehradun. 5. The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant Dinesh Lal under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/-. For the offence of Sections 4/25 Arms Act, appellant was sentenced to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, it was directed that the appellant would be liable to undergo seven months’ additional rigorous imprisonment. He was, however, acquitted from the charge of Section 309 IPC. 6. Aggrieved against the same, appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal. 7. On an earlier occasion, this criminal appeal was decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 3.7.2013. His criminal appeal was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the same, he approached the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. Aggrieved against the same, appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal. 7. On an earlier occasion, this criminal appeal was decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 3.7.2013. His criminal appeal was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the same, he approached the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has remanded the matter to this Court with certain vital observations and, therefore, this Court has again heard the criminal appeal as per the directions of Hon’ble Apex Court. 8. PW1 has stated in her examination-in-chief that Km. Kusum (deceased) was her granddaughter. The incident took place on the day of HOLI, which falls in the falgun month, a Hindi calendar year. The incident took place six months ago (from the date of her deposition). She stated that she had gone to the forest to fetch the grass. Her daughter-in-law Ram Maya and granddaughter Km. Kusum (deceased) also went with her to fetch the grass. They reached at 9:30 A.M. They spent around 2-2½ hours in the jungle. At 11:30 A.M., they were ready to proceed to their village after cutting the grass. Accused Dinesh Lal came with a sickle. He inflicted a blow of sickle on the left hand side, below heart, of Km. Kusum. PW1 saw the incident from a distance of 3 meters. PW1 also identified the accused before the Trial Court. The marriage of Dinesh Lal with Km. Kusum had been arranged. But then, the arrangement was broken. Furious Dinesh Lal killed Km. Kusum. When Dinesh Lal inflicted blow of sickle on victim; she fell on the ground and died. In repentance, the accused also inflicted blow on his abdomen and fell down. PW1 and her daughter-in-law ran away towards their village. 9. In her cross-examination, PW1 stated, among other things, that Km. Kusum was major. She did not remember the date of incident. All that she remembers is that the incident took place on the day of HOLI. In her cross-examination, she further stated that they proceeded to fetch the grass at about 9:30 A.M. They spent 2½ hours in the jungle. They had gone to fetch the grass in the jungle of Bartakhunda, which is situated at a distance of 100 paces from their house. She knew the appellant since the day his marriage was arranged with the deceased. They had gone to fetch the grass in the jungle of Bartakhunda, which is situated at a distance of 100 paces from their house. She knew the appellant since the day his marriage was arranged with the deceased. His residence was situated at a distance of 100 kilometers from their village. PW1 did not know about the profession of appellant. The marriage of appellant with the victim was arranged with their consent. Various questions were also put to this witness in cross-examination about the size of grass, mode of transportation etc. She responded to those questions in her cross-examination successfully. PW1 also stated that she saw the appellant inflicting blow of sickle on the victim. She along with Ram Maya were present there. The victim was present at a distance of 3 meters from them. She saw sickle in the hand of appellant. He did not throw the sickle and kept on holding the sickle and that is why, he again inflicted blow on himself with that sickle. PW1 and Ram Maya had no occasion to defend the victim. PW1 and Ram Maya were frightened. PW1 became unconscious when she returned to her house. Jyotir Dass is her son. He was informed about the incident. He came back at around 2 or 2:30 PM. Victim fell at a distance of 100 paces from where she was injured. Everything happened in seconds. When PW1 was cross-examined, the sickle was not available in the Court. She denied the suggestion of defence that being the grandmother of victim, she was telling a lie. 10. Thus, nothing has been found in the cross-examination of PW1 to hold that she was telling a lie. She was a natural witness, inasmuch as, she went to fetch the grass along with her daughter-in-law and victim. There is every probability that appellant might have inflicted a blow on the woman with whom proposal for marriage was there but later it was withdrawn. He had every right to feel aggrieved. It is also natural that, in repentance, he inflicted blow on him. Although, the woman died, but he remained unscathed, though he also sustained the injuries. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments before us, submitted that the appellant also sustained injuries. He had every right to feel aggrieved. It is also natural that, in repentance, he inflicted blow on him. Although, the woman died, but he remained unscathed, though he also sustained the injuries. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments before us, submitted that the appellant also sustained injuries. Although, those documents have not been brought on record, but now, we have been able to understand as to why and how the appellant also sustained the injuries on him. It was on account of repentance. Since he inflicted blows on victim, as a consequence of which, she died, therefore, he also inflicted blow of sickle on him in repentance, which is too obvious. The incident has been narrated by PW1 in a most natural way. Her presence on the place of incident also seems to be natural. 12. PW2 also supported the prosecution version, as also the oral testimony of PW1. She stated in her examination-in-chief that the victim was her real niece. The incident took place on the day of HOLI. Her grandmother-in-law Madi Devi, niece Kusum and she, went to fetch the grass in Bartakhunda which is situated at a distance of 50 paces from her house. They went to fetch the grass at about 9:30 AM and did the needful till about 11:30 AM. When they were about to proceed to their house, appellant came holding sickle in his hand. He inflicted blow on the victim with the sickle. The victim fell down and died. Thereafter, the appellant also inflicted blow on his own navel. He also became unconscious and fell down. A pandemonium broke out. She cried and then the villagers assembled. Jyotir Dass was working in a temple; Ramesh was sent to inform Jyotir Dass. Ramesh was the brother of deceased. Appellant was annoyed because his proposal for marriage was broken. Appellant wanted to marry the victim, which she denied. Appellant threatened that if she denies marrying with him, he will kill her parents. Appellant is also related to PW2. 13. In her cross-examination, PW2 stated that she was illiterate. Her husband is working in a bakery shop at Nainital. The time of incident was on the basis of guess work and therefore, it was an approximate time. Appellant was working in Bombay. Earlier, the parties were agreeable to marry the victim with appellant but, thereafter, resiled. 13. In her cross-examination, PW2 stated that she was illiterate. Her husband is working in a bakery shop at Nainital. The time of incident was on the basis of guess work and therefore, it was an approximate time. Appellant was working in Bombay. Earlier, the parties were agreeable to marry the victim with appellant but, thereafter, resiled. In her cross-examination, many questions were asked as to how the incident took place, who saw it, who inflicted the injuries; PW2 responded to all of them successfully. She denied the suggestion that the appellant did not inflict the blows of sickle on the victim and PW2, being the aunt of victim, was telling a lie. She also denied the suggestion that she did not go to the jungle to fetch the grass. Thus, PW2 has supported the prosecution version as well as the testimony of her predecessor in the witness box. 14. PW3 is the mother of deceased. She stated in her examination-in-chief that appellant came to her house a month ago before the incident. Victim went to the jungle to fetch grass in the morning. At around 11:30, she heard the noise. Her son informed her that the appellant has inflicted blows of sickle on the victim and subsequently on him. PW3 felt unconscious after hearing about the incident. The engagement of appellant took place with the victim and, therefore, he used to visit their residence quite often. He was serving in a hotel at Bombay. She did not know the date of incident, inasmuch as, she is an illiterate woman. 15. PW4 also supported the prosecution story. He is the father of victim. In his examination-in-chief, he again narrated about the engagement of appellant with his daughter and also said that when they asked the appellant that it will not be possible for Kusum to marry him, he gave a threat. Thereafter, on the day of HOLI, when he came from Bombay, he was informed that his daughter was killed by the appellant. He reached Bartakhunda jungle. He saw that his daughter was lying dead in a field. He lodged the FIR Ex.Ka-1. Appellant also felt unconscious. Appellant told that he has killed the victim because her father refused to marry her with him. In his cross-examination, he stated many other things that he was quite illiterate but he could put his signatures. He reached Bartakhunda jungle. He saw that his daughter was lying dead in a field. He lodged the FIR Ex.Ka-1. Appellant also felt unconscious. Appellant told that he has killed the victim because her father refused to marry her with him. In his cross-examination, he stated many other things that he was quite illiterate but he could put his signatures. He did not know about the date, month and year of the incident. It is but obvious for an illiterate man belonging to the remote village of District Tehri Garhwal. He got the complaint Ex.Ka-1 scribed in the village. He admitted that the incident did not take place in his presence. 16. PW5 was the Pradhan of the village in which the incident took place. He also supported the prosecution story and said that the incident took place on the day of HOLI. Hearing the noise of victim’s killing, he also went to the place of incident and saw that the victim was lying on the field. Appellant was also lying on the field in the injured state. When PW5, along with others, enquired from the appellants as to who killed the victim, he (appellant) replied that since the victim’s father refused to get her married to him, therefore, he had killed the victim with a sickle. 17. Thus, there is direct evidence, besides extra judicial confession of the appellant before Gram Pradhan and others. It is a case of direct evidence which is trustworthy and reliable and nothing has come in the cross-examination of the witnesses to indicate that they were telling a lie. Why should they tell a lie? The reason of the appellant killing the victim and thereafter, in repentance, inflicting blow on him, is obvious. All the prosecution witnesses have said about the reason unequivocally. Likewise, all the prosecution witnesses including the eyewitnesses have stated in no uncertain terms that it was the appellant and appellant alone who has killed the victim. The fact that the appellant killed the victim with a sickle is further strengthened by the fact that he also inflicted self blows on him with the sickle and was lying on the field near the dead body of victim. 18. PW5 is also the signatory of inquest report. He was also cross-examined at length much to the discomfiture of the prosecution. 19. PW8 is the brother of deceased. 18. PW5 is also the signatory of inquest report. He was also cross-examined at length much to the discomfiture of the prosecution. 19. PW8 is the brother of deceased. He also supported the prosecution story. Although, he was not the eyewitness but he saw, while going to jungle, that his sister was killed (by the appellant). Appellant was also lying injured having a sickle in his hand. On being enquired from him, he disclosed the PW8 that he has killed the victim because they people (parents, brother etc. of victim) did not want her to marry the appellant. 20. PW9 was Naib Tehsildar posted in Jakhanidhar on 11.3.2009. He lodged the FIR on the basis of a complaint filed by Jyotir Dass. PW9 proved the Chick FIR. He also went to the place of incident and got the inquest report prepared. Report was obtained from Forensic Science Laboratory on 22.5.2009. From the statements of witnesses and finally on being satisfied that the appellant has committed the offence, submitted the charge-sheet against him for the offences u/s 302/309 IPC and one u/s 4/25 of Arms Act. PW9 also proved the sickle Ex.1 and the cloth, in which the sickle was wrapped, which was found from the appellant. He also proved the Saree which the victim was wearing at the time of incident. 21. PW9 being the I.O. of the case proved certain other documents. It is not necessary for this Court to describe all those documents while deciding the instant appeal but it will be necessary to indicate at this stage that the simple soil and bloodstained soil were also collected by the I.O. which were later on sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 22. The evidence of PW9 lends credence to the prosecution story when he says that the appellant was admitted in Doon Hospital. His discharge certificate has been brought on record and the extra judicial confession of the appellant was also recorded stating therein that he also inflicted blows on him when the family members refused to marry her with him. Then he inflicted the blows on his own. The eyewitnesses have already stated that it is the appellant who killed the victim and thereafter, inflicted blows on himself with the same sickle. The fact that appellant was also admitted in Doon Hospital, lends assurance to the prosecution story. 23. Then he inflicted the blows on his own. The eyewitnesses have already stated that it is the appellant who killed the victim and thereafter, inflicted blows on himself with the same sickle. The fact that appellant was also admitted in Doon Hospital, lends assurance to the prosecution story. 23. In the post-mortem report, cause of death of victim has been shown due to internal hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries and neuro-genic shock. Various ante-mortem injuries have been found in the post-mortem report to show that those injuries could be inflicted with the blow of a sickle. Thus, the medical report supports the prosecution story. 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court has directed this Court to re-appreciate the evidence in view of the statement of the appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C. about the injuries caused to him by Khukhri. The Hon’ble Apex Court also wanted this Court to properly re-appraise the findings recorded by the Trial Court. So, this Court holds that the statement of the accused, insofar as the fact that he sustained the injuries, is correct and is also endorsed by so many prosecution witnesses. PW9 has also stated that the appellant was admitted in Doon Hospital and was later on, discharged. The fact that the appellant sustained injuries, lends further credence to the prosecution story. Appellant not only killed the victim but also inflicted the blows on him in penance. The reason being that his marriage was already arranged with the victim, which later, could not be materialized for some reasons and therefore, the appellant inflicted blow not only on the victim but also on him in penance; whereas, the victim succumbed to her injuries, the appellant did not. Apart from the eyewitness account, there is evidence that the appellant gave extra-judicial confession before some of the witnesses, a reference of which is given in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, to say that he killed the victim and also inflicted blows on him. By no stretch of imagination, it is possible to hold that Ramesh wanted to kill the appellant; victim Ms. Kusum intercepted and that is why, she sustained the injuries. In other words, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that Ms. By no stretch of imagination, it is possible to hold that Ramesh wanted to kill the appellant; victim Ms. Kusum intercepted and that is why, she sustained the injuries. In other words, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that Ms. Kusum sustained injuries on her intervention in the incident, appears to have no substance and is only a plea taken for the first time in the appellant’s statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. which has no legs to stand. 25. On a wholesome reading of the prosecution evidence, it is revealed that the eyewitnesses have supported the prosecution story which is proved with the medical evidence and other peripheral witnesses. This Court need not repeat the same. It is a case of direct evidence. The motive for killing the victim has been indicated by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. The Trial Court has appropriately discussed all the evidence recorded before it to hold that the prosecution was able to prove the case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. This Court, therefore, holds that the findings recorded by the Trial Court, while convicting the appellant, are not interferable. The appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. Appellant shall, accordingly, undergo the sentence so awarded to him by the Trial Court. 26. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for information and compliance.