Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1070 (ALL)

BHUMI RAJ v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-04-20

KRISHNA MURARI, RAVINDRA NATH KAKKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J. This Criminal Appeal No. 687 of 1983 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.03.1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 325 of 1982, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that informant/complainant Om Prakash, brother of the deceased Ishwar Dayal, had lodged an FIR of the incident stating therein that on 10.06.1982 at night, he and his brother Ishwar Dayal were looking after Tari (Extract of palm tree) on the tube-well of Ram Dayal where Ram Dayal, Panna Lal, Bhumi Raj (accused) were also present. This tube-well is situated in the field of Ram Dayal and these persons used to keep watch over Tari. The trees which bear Taris were standing at a short distance from the said tube-well. At about 11:30 p.m. in order to keep watch and to look after the trees, Ram Dayal awoke the informant and his brother Ishwar Dayal (deceased) and the accused Bhumi Raj, on his call, proceeded towards the trees and they were followed by Om Prakash, Panna Lal and Ram Dayal. There was a lighted electric bulb on the roof of the tube-well. The deceased and the accused were going together followed by the informant Panna Lal and Ram Dayal. On reaching at a distance of 50 paces from the tube-well, accused Bhumi Raj suddenly took out his country made pistol and opened fire which hit the deceased in the right side on the axillary line who fell down in the field of Ram Dayal and due to pain he was not in a position to speak whereas accused Bhumi Raj escaped towards the north direction holding country made pistol in his right hand. The witnesses rushed to the spot but could not dare to catch Bhumi Raj (accused) due to fear as he was holding country made pistol. Thereafter, witnesses managed to take the victim Ishwar Dayal to the village abadi but Ishwar Dayal succumbed to his injuries on the way. Complainant Om Prakash put the dead body in front of his house. A written report got prepared through Sri Ajant Singh and the same was lodged at police station at 7 a.m. on the next day i.e. 11.06.1982. Complainant Om Prakash put the dead body in front of his house. A written report got prepared through Sri Ajant Singh and the same was lodged at police station at 7 a.m. on the next day i.e. 11.06.1982. On the basis of the written report, FIR Ex.Ka-3 was drawn up by Constable Shri Niwas and entry was made in the G.D., a copy of which is Ex.Ka-4. The investigation was made over to Sub Inspector Ganga Charan Singh P.W.-6. After completion of the investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted a charge sheet which is Ex. Ka-14 on record. 3. The motive and immediate cause for committing the crime as transpires from the FIR and the prosecution evidence stated to be that Jodha Singh took Rs. 4,000/- loan from accused Bhumi Raj and in lieu of that Bhumi Raj took 8 bighas field of Jodha Singh for cultivation which he was not intending to return back to Jodha Singh even after repayment of loan. It is with the support and intervention of the deceased Ishwar Dayal that Jodha Singh got the land delivered back to him and that was the only reason of enmity between the accused and Ishwar Dayal. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined P.W.-1 Om Prakash, P.W.-2 Ram Dayal, P.W.-3 Dr. A.K. Upadhyaya, P.W.-4 Constable Shri Niwas, P.W.-5 Constable Lal Singh and P.W.-6 Sub Inspector Ganga Charan Singh in which P.W.-1 Om Prakash and P.W.-2 Ram Dayal have been produced as eye witnesses. 5. Analysis of evidence of the eye witnesses shows that P.W.-2 Ram Dayal was partly hostile and Panna Lal, the other eye witness named in the FIR, was not produced before trial court as he also appears to have turned hostile. 6. P.W.-3 Dr. A.K. Upadhyaya conducted the post mortem examination of the corpus of the dead body at 4:30 p.m. on 11.06.1982. On external examination, doctor found that body of the deceased was of average built. Rigor mortis had passed off from the upper extremities, but present on lower extremities. There was no sign of decomposition and opined that the time of death was about ¾ days and the age of the deceased was about 30 years. 7. P.W.-3 Dr. On external examination, doctor found that body of the deceased was of average built. Rigor mortis had passed off from the upper extremities, but present on lower extremities. There was no sign of decomposition and opined that the time of death was about ¾ days and the age of the deceased was about 30 years. 7. P.W.-3 Dr. A.K. Upadhyaya, found following ante mortem injuries on the dead body:- "Multiple fire arm wounds of entrance in an area of 13 cm x 10 cm on the right axillary line just below right axilla, 5 c.m. away from the right nipple at 9 o'clock position. The size of the large wound was 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. x cavity deep. The size of the smallest wound was 0.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x muscle deep. Margins were inverted and no blackening etc. existed." 8. On internal examination, the doctor found that ribs on right side, 6th and 7th were fractured. Right side pleura was lacerated. Right lung was lacerated. Thoracic cavity contained blood. Stomach contained 1 ½ pound semi digested food material. Small intestine were half full. The large intestines were full. The heart was empty. 9. As per opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from ante mortem injuries caused by a fire arm and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. He proved post mortem report Ex. Ka-2 available on record. 10. Sub Inspector Ganga Charan Singh was examined as P.W.6. He examined the complainant and the Constable in the police station and then proceeded to the place of incident where he found that the dead body of Ishwar Dayal was present at the house of the complainant. He prepared the Panchayatnama Ex.Ka-6, Khaka Laash Ex. Ka-7 and Challan Laash Ex.Ka-8. Further the dead body after being duly sealed was handed over to Constables Lal Singh and Surender Rai. The Investigating Officer had inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ex.Ka-12. The Investigating Officer collected the blood stained and ordinary earth soil from the spot and prepared fard Ex.Ka-13. The Investigating Officer, P.W.6 made statement to the effect that the accused Bhumi Raj was arrested on the information of a police informer on the same day at 4:00 p.m. near the bridge of 'kharit' and recoveries were made from him. The Investigating Officer collected the blood stained and ordinary earth soil from the spot and prepared fard Ex.Ka-13. The Investigating Officer, P.W.6 made statement to the effect that the accused Bhumi Raj was arrested on the information of a police informer on the same day at 4:00 p.m. near the bridge of 'kharit' and recoveries were made from him. He along with the recovered articles was brought to the police station for which entry in G.D. was made vide copy Ex. Ka-5. 11. The learned Trial Judge framed charge against accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial Judge. The accused denied the charges and stated that he never cultivated Jodha Singh's agricultural field and he had been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. Further he denied the prosecution version of his arrest and categorically submitted that at the time of incident, shots had been fired from the side of the trees of Tari and the gun shot injuries were not only received by the deceased-victim but he himself received the fire arm injuries and Dr. A.K. Srivastava was produced as D.W.1 in this case who stated that he found the following injuries on the body of the accused on 14.06.1982 :- (1) Multiple scabbed abrasion 7 cm x 4 cm in area on back aspect of upper 1/3rd of left fore arm. Advice for X-ray. (2) Bluish black contused swelling on dorsum aspect of left greater toe 5 cm x 4 cm in size. 12. We have heard Shri Ankit Agarwal holding brief of Shri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.K. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant accused raised following contentions before this Court :- (1) The impugned judgment of conviction is based on the sole testimony of a related witness. (2) There is no source of light to witness the incident by the prosecution witnesses. (3) Neither there is any chemical report nor ballistic report to support the prosecution story. (4) Chemical report does not corroborate the prosecution version as stated by the eye version account of the witnesses. (5) FIR has been challenged on the ground of delay. (2) There is no source of light to witness the incident by the prosecution witnesses. (3) Neither there is any chemical report nor ballistic report to support the prosecution story. (4) Chemical report does not corroborate the prosecution version as stated by the eye version account of the witnesses. (5) FIR has been challenged on the ground of delay. (6) Medical version is not in consonance with the ocular testimony (7) The prosecution failed to explain injuries of the accused. 14. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and contended that all the points which have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before this court have been discussed by the trial court. Further stated that there is cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has wrongly submitted that the conviction is based on the sole testimony as the other witness P.W.2 Ram Dayal whose presence at the time of incident has not been denied by the defence and has partially supported the prosecution version. The trial court recorded the conviction of the appellant accused on the finding that medical evidence corroborates the eye version account. Therefore, this appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. Before appraisement of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we would like to refer noticeable features of the prosecution case. So far as factum of murder of deceased Ishwar Dayal is concerned, date, time, place of occurrence and the death of the deceased due to fire arm injuries recorded as ante mortem injuries in the post mortem report are admitted even under the statements of an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. To substantiate the place of occurrence, the prosecution has produced P.W.1 informant Om Prakash, P.W.2 Ram Dayal and the Investigating Officer who prepared the site plan of the spot Ex.Ka-12. Perusal of the site map Ex.Ka-12 reveals that the Investigating Officer has stated in his site plan point 'A' where he found blood. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have categorically stated that the gun shot injury was received by Ishwar Dayal in between the tube well of Ram Dayal and trees of Tari. The distance of the tube well and the point 'A' as shown in the site plan Ex.Ka-12 is 80 paces. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have categorically stated that the gun shot injury was received by Ishwar Dayal in between the tube well of Ram Dayal and trees of Tari. The distance of the tube well and the point 'A' as shown in the site plan Ex.Ka-12 is 80 paces. The place of occurrence has not been disputed by the defence rather it is an admitted case that accused Bhumi Raj and the deceased Ishwar Dayal on being woken up by P.W.2 Ram Dayal were on the way to keep watch of the trees of palm from tube well but before reaching the palm trees on the way Ishwar Dayal received gun shot injuries and died on the spot instantly. The accused in his defence has stated that he also received fire arm injuries in the incident. According to him some unknown persons who took Taris from the trees fired shots on the deceased which killed the deceased and he also received fire arm injuries. So the place of occurrence, i.e. in between tube well and trees of Tari is admitted in this case. 16. With regard to the contention as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the named witness Panna Lal has not been produced as a witness by the prosecution and the evidence of P.W.1 Om Prakash who happens to be the real brother of the deceased and P.W.2 Ram Dayal who is uncle of the deceased has been adduced in this case. Further P.W.2 Ram Dayal has not supported the prosecution version about the involvement and complicity of the accused Bhumi Raj in the commission of crime rather he has turned hostile on this point and the conviction is based only on the sole testimony of the real brother P.W.1 Om Prakash whose presence at the time of occurrence was denied by the defence as he was not present at the time of incident because he had gone to see cinema at Etah. 17. Now to appreciate the above arguments, we have perused the record. We find that the named witness Panna Lal has not been produced by the prosecution asserting that he had turned hostile. It is pertinent to mention that the tube well owner Ram Dayal has been examined in this case who has supported the prosecution version in part. 17. Now to appreciate the above arguments, we have perused the record. We find that the named witness Panna Lal has not been produced by the prosecution asserting that he had turned hostile. It is pertinent to mention that the tube well owner Ram Dayal has been examined in this case who has supported the prosecution version in part. Further there is no evidence to attribute any oblique motive on the prosecution about the non-production of Panna Lal. So legally no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution for not-producing Panna Lal as a witness. Further, it is an established legal proposition that testimony of the interested and related witnesses are to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. The testimony of the interested and related testimony should not be discarded on this very ground that the witnesses are interested and partisan. Further, we would like to add that P.W.1 Om Prakash and P.W.2 Ram Dayal and accused Bhumi Raj are related to each other. It is common and prudent to hold that the relative of the deceased would normally not leave the real culprit and falsely implicate innocent person who also happens to be blood relation. It is the normal phenomena of a human nature and that is expected human conduct that the real culprits should be prosecuted and convicted. 18. With regard to the contention as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged country made pistol has not been sent by the Investigating Officer for examination to the ballistic expert, it is relevant to mention that firstly the weapon recovered from the accused at the time of arrest at 4.00 p.m. on the next day after the incident cannot be said to be the country made pistol which has been used in the commission of the crime. Secondly, it would have been a futile exercise to sent it to ballistic expert for examination as no empty cartridge was found and recovered from the place of occurrence. Had there been any recovery of empty cartridges and weapons from the spot then only the weapons used in the incident would have been helpful in the case. Therefore, we hold that non-production of Panna Lal as a witness and country made pistol being not sent for examination to ballistic expert has no relevance in this case. 19. Had there been any recovery of empty cartridges and weapons from the spot then only the weapons used in the incident would have been helpful in the case. Therefore, we hold that non-production of Panna Lal as a witness and country made pistol being not sent for examination to ballistic expert has no relevance in this case. 19. So far as the contention as raised by the learned counsel with regard to delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, admittedly, the FIR was lodged by the real brother of the deceased and on the basis of the written report Ex.Ka-8, chik FIR Ex.Ka-3 was prepared at 7 a.m. The occurrence took place at about 11.30 (midnight). As per the prosecution story the injured was shifted to the village and he succumbed to his injuries on the way. The dead body was kept at the door of the house of the deceased and it is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 Ram Dayal as well as the Investigating Officer. Under the above stated facts situation no reasonable and prudent man could expect that FIR must have been lodged to the police station immediately after the commission of the heinous crime of murder committed at midnight and that too when the assailants had escaped from the spot. These circumstances explain the circumstances of lodging the FIR on the next early morning at 7 a.m. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that FIR is belated and delayed. So we find no force in this contention of the learned counsel. 20. With regard to the oral testimony, learned counsel for the appellant accused contended that the conviction is based on the sole testimony of the real brother of the deceased. Further on this point we have perused the lower court record and find that in this case the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Om Prakash who has fully supported the prosecution version whereas P.W.2 Ram Dayal partially supported the prosecution version. So far appraisement of such kind of witnesses who partly support the prosecution version and partially hostile, the established legal proposition is that the evidence of such witness has to be carefully and cautiously scrutinized instead of mechanically throwing it out. It is trite law that partial support may be taken from the hostile testimony. So far appraisement of such kind of witnesses who partly support the prosecution version and partially hostile, the established legal proposition is that the evidence of such witness has to be carefully and cautiously scrutinized instead of mechanically throwing it out. It is trite law that partial support may be taken from the hostile testimony. In such cases the statement which supports the prosecution version could be utilized in support of it. Now if we analyse the statement of P.W.2 Ram Dayal from this angle, we find that it is an admitted fact that Ram Dayal was present at his tube well before the incident. It also transpires that incident took place at a short distance of his tube well. Further, the accused himself has admitted this fact in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased Ishwar Dayal as well as the accused were woken up by P.W.2 Ram Dayal for the purpose of keeping watch over the trees of Tari. 21. Reference may be made on this point to the pronouncement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 82 ACC Page 401 (Supreme Court) wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. As we have already discussed that P.W.2 Ram Dayal was partially hostile, he has supported the prosecution version and the statement of P.W.1 Om Prakash to the extent of date, time, place of incident, weapon and mode and manner of committing the murder of deceased Ishwar Dayal. It is an admitted fact that accused Bhumi Raj along with Ishwar Dayal were on the way to keep watch over the trees of Tari and they started from the tube well of Ram Dayal who was examined in this case. P.W.1 and P.W.2 both have stated in their eye version account that Ishwar Dayal died due to the assault of the fire arm weapon and he died instantly on the spot and Bhumi Raj, who is accused in this case, escaped from the spot. P.W.1 and P.W.2 both have stated in their eye version account that Ishwar Dayal died due to the assault of the fire arm weapon and he died instantly on the spot and Bhumi Raj, who is accused in this case, escaped from the spot. Now the version put forward by the defence with regard to the injuries sustained by Bhumi Raj of the fire arm weapon is not found to be credible, believable even not supported by the medical evidence tendered by P.W.1 Dr. A.K. Upadhyay. So we find that the evidence of P.W.2 so far as it supports the prosecution version could not be rejected in toto as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention as raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment is based only on the sole testimony. Further on this point we would like to mention that it is embedded legal position that even the sole testimony of a witness can form basis of conviction provided it finds corroboration from other physical factors and circumstances. 22. Now so far as the presence of informant P.W.1 at the time of occurrence is concerned, if we microscopically analyse the statement of P.W.2 Ram Dayal, we find that in his cross-examination P.W.2 Ram Dayal made statement that P.W.1 Om Prakash was not present at the time of occurrence and had gone to see cinema at Etah, but in his examination-in-chief this witness has stated that besides the deceased Ishwar Dayal and the accused Bhumi Raj, Om Prakash and Panna Lal were also present at his tube well before the occurrence. It is very interesting to note that when the attention of this witness has been drawn to the statement made in examination-in-chief, no satisfactory explanation was accorded. The only explanation given by him is ^^/;ku ls pwd x;k Fkk ^^ so we find there is substance in the argument of the learned A.G.A. as the statement given in cross-examination clearly sounds that this witness has colluded with the accused in order to save his skin from the culpability of the crime. 23. Judging it from another angle, it would be appropriate to mention that the accused has stated in his defence that he was arrested before the inquest from the village itself. 23. Judging it from another angle, it would be appropriate to mention that the accused has stated in his defence that he was arrested before the inquest from the village itself. There is no controversy on this point that the arrest of the accused was made on the same day, but P.W.6 Sub Inspector Ganga Charan Singh, Investigating Officer, deposed before the trial court that while he was proceeding to village Parham after holding the inquest etc., on the information of the informer, he arrested the accused at 4 p.m. near the bridge of kharit. Further, it would be appropriate to refer that it is an admitted version of both the parties that both the deceased and accused started from tube well to the trees of Taris to keep watch over the trees and on the way the incident took place. Now if some unknown person opened fire which hits both, the deceased Ishwar Dayal as well as accused Bhumi Raj, then what was the occasion that Bhumi Raj had fled away from the spot. Further the injuries which are alleged to be sustained by the accused Bhumi Raj have been examined. We find that there are only two superficial injuries on the body of Bhumi Raj. Dr. A.K. Srivastava, who proved these injuries on the body of Bhumi Raj, stated that the first injury was multiple scabbed abrasion and the second injury was contused swelling. He has specifically stated that these injuries of the accused could not be caused by any fire arm weapon. So on both the counts the defence version is found to be not acceptable. Further, it would be appropriate to mention that if the deceased Ishwar Dayal and accused Bhumi Raj were seen together then who fired on them is a fact which is in the special knowledge of the accused and under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act if any fact is within the special knowledge then it ought to have been proved. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. serves dual purpose (i) to explain the conduct and (ii) to deny the incriminating evidence which had been tendered by the prosecution against the accused. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. serves dual purpose (i) to explain the conduct and (ii) to deny the incriminating evidence which had been tendered by the prosecution against the accused. So far as the conduct of the accused is concerned, we find it to be surprising that the accused escaped away from the spot and his arrest was made on the next day at 4 p.m. near the bridge of kharit. 24. With regard to the arrest of accused, the Investigating Officer P.W.6 Sub Inspector Ganga Ram has deposed that after holding the inquest etc. he was proceeding to village Parham and when he was on the way, on the information of the informer, he arrested the accused at 4.00 p.m. on the same day near the bridge of kharit and recovered a country made pistol 12 bore and three cartridges. The Investigating Officer further stated that after the arrest, accused alongwith sealed bundle of the recovered articles was brought to the police station for which entry in the G.D. was made vide copy Ex.Ka-5. In this way from the evidence tendered by both parties, the version of the defence that he was arrested from the village and was present at the time of inquest, is found to be not acceptable. 25. The point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is of a related witness, we would like to refer that it is trite law that evidentiary value of the related witnesses require scrutiny with care, caution and self speculation. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon. 26. Further next point of contention as raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellant is that the medical report is not in consonance with the eye version account. We do not agree with his submission because the nature and seat of the injury found by the doctor shows that the ante mortem injury of the fire arm weapon was on the right axillary just below the right axilla. We do not agree with his submission because the nature and seat of the injury found by the doctor shows that the ante mortem injury of the fire arm weapon was on the right axillary just below the right axilla. Further it is supported by the sketch lash Ex.Ka-7 which shows that the situs of gun shot injury is towards the armpit. Now as suggested by the defence that the gun shots were made by unknown persons who committed the theft of Tari and had fired shot causing gun shot injuries to the deceased as well as to the accused, it is relevant to mention that assuming if defence version is taken to be correct then the gun shot injury to the deceased naturally would have been somewhere in the front part of the body. Further as we have already observed that the injuries of accused examined by the Doctor in jail does not support to the defence version as the injuries sustained on the body of the accused are not found to be caused by any fire arm weapon. 27. So far as non explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused, we have already discussed that these two injuries (i) contused swelling and (ii) abrasion are of a trivial nature and it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be called as severe and serious injury. Further it is not the case of the defence that prosecution has caused this injury. So non-explanation of it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution story. In addition to the injuries on the body of the deceased, the defence is required to prove this factum which he utterly failed to prove. Further circumstance of the case is that accused Bhumiraj who was accompanying the deceased Ishwar Dayal to keep watch of the trees of Tari and Iswhar Dayal fell down on receiving the fire arm injuries due to the gun shot by some other person, had it been so and the accused would also have sustained the injuries due to gun shot fired by some other person, he should not have escaped from the spot. It being the unnatural conduct, no person of ordinary prudence can believe this story. So we find no substance so far as non-explanation of the injuries on the body of the accused is concerned. 28. It being the unnatural conduct, no person of ordinary prudence can believe this story. So we find no substance so far as non-explanation of the injuries on the body of the accused is concerned. 28. So far as submission raised by learned counsel for appellant with regard to the motive of incident, since prosecution case is based on direct evidence that is eye version account, therefore, as per legal proposition motive is not of much importance and relevant in this case. As per FIR version supported by the evidence of P.W.1 Om Prakash who stated that Jodha Singh took Rs.4,000/- loan amount from accused Bhumi Raj and in lieu of that Bhumi Raj took 8 bighas field of Jodha Singh for cultivation which he did not intend to return back to Jodha Singh even on payment of the loan. Anyhow Jodha Singh managed the loan amount and with the help and support of Ishwar Dayal (deceased) got back his land from Bhumiraj prior a month of this incident. That was the reason of enmity between the accused and the deceased Ishwar Dayal. There is only bald denial of the accused that neither he took possession of the field nor had given loan to Jodha Singh. The defence was not able to point out anything in support of its version. Therefore, we do not find any substance in this argument. 29. Now so far as the contention with regard to the source of light as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the deceased and accused were present at tube well of Ram Dayal and they were awakened by Ram Dayal for keeping watch over the trees of Tari. It is a natural as well as proved fact that there was an electric bulb on the tube well and as stated in site plan the distance of the place of incident was only 80 paces from the tube well to the point 'A' where the blood was found. It also transpires from the prosecution evidence that P.W.1 Om Prakash and Panna Lal were following the accused and the deceased towards the trees of Tari. All the persons, i.e. accused, deceased as well as Panna Lal and Om Prakash were known to each other. It also transpires from the prosecution evidence that P.W.1 Om Prakash and Panna Lal were following the accused and the deceased towards the trees of Tari. All the persons, i.e. accused, deceased as well as Panna Lal and Om Prakash were known to each other. Further the source of light and supply of electricity at the time of occurrence is proved by the fact witnesses so it cannot be held that P.W.1 Om Prakash would not see the occurrence due to the distance as this fact has been cogently established that the accused Bhumi Raj and the deceased Ishwar Dayal proceeded towards the trees of Tari from the same place from where Om Prakash was present. Consequently, there could not be any serious question of identity of the accused on the spot. 30. So far as the ante mortem injuries are concerned, they are found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course and the impugned judgment of conviction cannot be said to be based on uncorroborated single testimony. Therefore, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have no merit at all. 31. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 17.03.1983 convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. is confirmed and the appeal having no force is hereby dismissed. 32. Let a certified copy of the judgement/order along with lower court record be sent to the court concerned for necessary compliance.