JUDGMENT : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Zakir Hussain @ Thakur has directed instant appeal in order to challenge the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2010 rendered by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Baran (Rajasthan). The said Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 09.07.2010, held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 2. Having convicted the appellant for the above said offences, the trial Judge, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellant as under :- “For offence under Section 302 I.P.C. : The appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. : The appellant was sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s additional simple imprisonment. The trial Court further ordered that both the sentences awarded upon the appellant shall run concurrently.” In the present appeal filed, a prayer has been made that the conviction pronounced and the sentences awarded by the trial Court, be set aside. 3. The criminal proceedings, in the present case, were set into motion on the basis of written-report (Exhibit-P/5) submitted by complainant - Abdul Raees (PW-2), father of deceased - Imran before Vijay Shankar Sharma (PW-17), who was then posted as Circle Inspector, Police Station Kotwali Baran. 4. Vijay Shankar Sharma (PW-17) in the Court deposed that on 20.09.2008 he was posted as Circle Inspector, Police Station Kotwali Baran. On the said date at 12:00 A.M., he received a telephonic information to the effect that at the Pipli Chowk opposite Man School, Zakir by causing knife blows has committed murder of one Imran. Upon receipt of information, this witness, along with Police party departed from Police Station and reached at Pipli-Chowk and from there they learnt that injured Imran has been taken to the District Hospital, Baran. Upon such information, this witness, along with Police party proceeded to the hospital, where Abdul Raees, father of Imran presented written-report (Exhibit-P/5). Upon receipt of information, this witness, along with Police party departed from Police Station and reached at Pipli-Chowk and from there they learnt that injured Imran has been taken to the District Hospital, Baran. Upon such information, this witness, along with Police party proceeded to the hospital, where Abdul Raees, father of Imran presented written-report (Exhibit-P/5). On the basis of such report, a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/15) bearing No.552/2008 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 5. In the written-report (Exhibit-P/5), complainant - Abdul Raees (PW-2) stated that his son Imran was a student of 12th Class. He was studying in Man Public School, Baran. In the morning, Imran had gone to the School to attend the Classes. The witness stated that he learnt that on 20.09.2008 at about 11:45 A.M. Zakir, along with his companions called Imran from School and caused knife blows to Imran. The said occurrence was witnessed by Mohammad Kadir (PW-8), Abdul Salam (PW-4) and Nafees @ Ateeq (PW-9) respectively. Imran was brought to the hospital, where he was declared dead. It was further stated in the report that Zakir used to tease Shahida (PW-12), daughter of the complainant and sister of the deceased. On this, they earlier also had reprimanded Zakir, but Zakir had given a threat that he will teach them a lesson. In the written-report, it was stated that due to the old grudge, Zakir, along with his companions had caused knife blows in the abdomen of Imran resulting into his death. In the written-report, it was stated that the teachers and students of the Man Public School were also aware regarding the alleged occurrence. 6. The above said report was investigated. A report of investigation under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court of concerned Magistrate. The report of investigation, along with the accused was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same was entrusted for trial to the Court of Additional District @ Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Baran. 7. Dr. J.P. Yadav (PW-14), being Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Baran, on 20.09.2008 at 02:00 P.M. had conducted an autopsy on the dead-body of Imran. Two stab wounds were found in the abdomen of the deceased. About 250 ml. Liquid food material was present in the stomach. 7. Dr. J.P. Yadav (PW-14), being Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Baran, on 20.09.2008 at 02:00 P.M. had conducted an autopsy on the dead-body of Imran. Two stab wounds were found in the abdomen of the deceased. About 250 ml. Liquid food material was present in the stomach. As per opinion of the said Doctor, the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock, due to spleen and liver injury. All the injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 8. On 21.09.2008 at 05:55 P.M. Dr. J.P. Yadav (PW-14) had also examined present accused-appellant - Zakiar Hussain @ Thakur and in the Injury Report (Exhibit-P/13), Doctor had noted following injuries on the person of accused - Zakir :- “1. Incised wound (oblique after removal of bandage) 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm on right little finger at palmar surface, simple sharp 2. Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1 x 0.5 cm on right ring finger at palmar surface, simple blunt 3. Abrasion 1.5 x 0.5 cm on right middle finger at palmar surface, simple blunt 4. Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm on the left ear, simple blunt 5. Abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cm on right side of nose, simple blunt.” 9. A perusal of the above injury on the person of accused reveals that Injury Nos.1, 2 and 3 were on the right little finger, right ring finger and right middle finger. Injury Nos.4 and 5 were abrasions on the left ear and right side of nose. All injuries were declared as simple in nature, as no bony injuries were found after the radiological examination. 10. The prosecution, in all, examined seventeen witnesses and also proved on record documents Exhibit-P1/to Exhibit-P/21-A. In defence, the accused proved copy of the Report No.1037 as Exhibit-D/1 and the statement of Mohammad Kadir (PW-8) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before Investigating Agency as Exhibit-D/2. 11. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all incriminating circumstances and raised a plea that he was encircled by the deceased and three other witnesses, namely Nafees @ Ateeq (PW-9), Kadir Khan (PW-8) and Abdul Salam (PW-4). Injury directed by Nafees @ Ateeq (PW-9) towards accused had landed in the abdomen of the deceased. 12. 11. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all incriminating circumstances and raised a plea that he was encircled by the deceased and three other witnesses, namely Nafees @ Ateeq (PW-9), Kadir Khan (PW-8) and Abdul Salam (PW-4). Injury directed by Nafees @ Ateeq (PW-9) towards accused had landed in the abdomen of the deceased. 12. We reproduce here defence taken by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in vernacular as under :- ^^?kVuk ds fnu 12&12-30 cts fnu Ldwy ls ljkZQk cktkj esa tk jgk Fkk rks eq>s e`rd bejku] vrhd] vkSj dnhj [kku o vCnqy lyke us ?ksjk@vrhd ds ikl pkdw ckdh rhu ds ikl M~kbZ yhoj ljh;s Fks bUgksaus esjs lkFk ekjihV dhA vrhd us pkdw ls esjs ekjk tks gkFk ij yxh rks eSa fups fxj x;kA vrhd us nwljk okj fd;k tks e`rd bejku ds yxkA ogka dkQh HkhM+ gks x;h FkhA ogkWa ls tku cpkdj Hkkxk o dksrokyh igqapk tgka esjs }kjk fy[kh fjiksVZ dksroky us QkM+dj Qsad nh o esjs f[kykQ >wBk eqdnek cuk fn;k eSa funksZ”k gwWa] eq>s >wBk Qalk;k gSA 13. Mohd. Hanif (PW-1) deposed regarding the recovery of alleged weapon of offence from the house of accused. 14. We may notice here that the appellant was arrested on 21.09.2008 vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/16. During his custody, the appellant suffered a disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/17) before Vijay Shankar Sharma (PW-17), Station House Officer, Kotwali Baran. In the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/17), accused stated that he had kept concealed one iron knife used in the occurrence in his house and he can get the same recovered. 15. The appellant on 23.09.2008 had suffered another disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/18), wherein he stated that he had kept concealed one blood stained shirt, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence beneath the stones near the boundary wall of the School and he can get the same recovered. 16. On 21.09.2008 vide recovery memo (Exhibit-P/1), knife was recovered from the house of accused in presence of Mohammad Hanif (PW-1) and Irfan Mansuri (PW-6). Thus, Mohammad Hanif (PW-1) and Irfan Mansuri (PW-6) were witnesses to recovery of knife at the instance of the appellant. 17. In pursuance of the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/18), vide recovery memo, Exhibit-P/3 accused got recovered T-shirt worn by him at the time of alleged occurrence from the place, as disclosed. Thus, Mohammad Hanif (PW-1) and Irfan Mansuri (PW-6) were witnesses to recovery of knife at the instance of the appellant. 17. In pursuance of the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/18), vide recovery memo, Exhibit-P/3 accused got recovered T-shirt worn by him at the time of alleged occurrence from the place, as disclosed. The recovery memo (Exhibit-P/3) was also attested by Mohammad Hanif (PW-1) and Abdul Hakim (PW-10). 18. At the repetition, it is to be noted that Mohammad Hanif (PW-1) and Irfan Mansuri (PW-6) were witness to the recovery of the weapon, whereas Mohammad Hanif (PW-1) and Abdul Hakim (PW-10) were witnesses to the recovery of blood stained T-shirt. The prosecution has also proved on record the Report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan Kota Range, Kota (Exhibit-P/19). As per said Report, Pant and shirt worn by the deceased were stained with the human blood group O. Similarly, shirt got recovered by the accused was having blood stains of human blood group O. On the knife recovered from the accused even though human blood was found, but the blood group thereof could not be determined as it was opined that the group was inconclusive. 19. Abdul Raees (PW-2) in the Court deposed that on 20.09.2008 his son - Imran had gone to Man Public School to attend 12th Class. At his shop, he received an information that Imran has been caused knife blows by Zakir and Imran is admitted in the hospital. This witness further stated that he reached at Hospital and saw that the dead-body of his son was lying on the table. The witness stated that about four-five days ago, accused had an altercation with the deceased. The accused - Zakir made an attempt to outrage the modesty of his girl Shahida and for this reason an altercation had ensued. The witness stated that on that day, Zakir had given a threat that he will liquidate his son. The witness stated that due to that grudge, on 20.09.2008 accused Zakir had caused knife blows to his son Imran after calling him from the School. The witness stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Kadir and Salam. The witness had also attested various memos prepared at the spot, wherein blood stained soil and the controlled soil were taken into possession by the appellant. 20. The witness stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Kadir and Salam. The witness had also attested various memos prepared at the spot, wherein blood stained soil and the controlled soil were taken into possession by the appellant. 20. Raees Ahmad (PW-3) stated that on hearing about the alleged occurrence, he had reached at the mortuary of the District Hospital, Baran. Number of persons of the vicinity were already gathered there. The witness stated that he received an information that Zakir son of Mangu Shah had caused injuries to Imran with the knife. Abdul Salam (PW-4) in the Court deposed that he, along with Kadir was going to Talabpada. At that time, accused armed with knife had given two blows in the abdomen of Imran. On the noise raised by them, Zakir ran away from the spot. Imran fell on the ground. The witness stated that at that time, younger brother of accused, namely Nafees @ Ateeq arrived at the spot. They brought Imran to the hospital on the motorcycle of Khalid. Doctor after medical check-up had declared Imran dead. 21. Khajid Akhtar (PW-5) deposed that daughter of Raees used to go to the School and accused used to tease her. The witness stated that he learnt on the date of occurrence that accused had caused knife injuries to deceased Imran. 22. Kadir Khan (PW-8) deposed in the Court that he, along with Abdul Salam was passing through the bangle bazar and when he reached near Mandir of Man School, he saw that accused was causing knife blows to Imran. They went forward to intervene. At that time accused ran away from the spot. 23. To the similar effect is the statement made by Nafees @ Ateeq (PW-9), brother of the deceased. 24. Shahida (PW-12) sister of deceased - Imran in the Court deposed that she is studying in 11th Class in Agrasen Academy Senior Secondary School. In 10th Class, she was studying at Government School, Old Police Station, Baran. At that time, accused used to follow her and tease her. She informed her father about the conduct of the accused. Upon this, her father reprimanded Zakir and asked him to see reason and not to harass her daughter. The witness stated that his brother - Imran also had talked with the accused. At that time, accused used to follow her and tease her. She informed her father about the conduct of the accused. Upon this, her father reprimanded Zakir and asked him to see reason and not to harass her daughter. The witness stated that his brother - Imran also had talked with the accused. The witness stated that accused was having grudge against his brother-Imran, therefore, brother Imran was murdered by the accused. Constable - Balram (PW-7) stated that he had carried sealed packets from Malkhana Incharge - Sampatraj (PW-15) to the Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Kota Range, Kota. 25. Sampatraj (PW-15) being Incharge of Malkhana deposed regarding the deposit of the articles with him in the Malkhana and their onward transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Kota Range, Kota. 26. Constable - Balram (PW-7) and Head Constable - Sampatraj (PW-15) have been examined to prove the link evidence. 27. Rajesh Maan (PW-13) stated that on the day of alleged occurrence, he was posted as Principal, Senior Secondary School, Talabpada, Baran. The witness stated that Imran was a student of 12th Class of his School. On the day occurrence took place, he was not present in the School. The witness stated that Urdu Class used to start at 11:00 A.M. and after the said period was over, the students were permitted to go to their residence. 28. Sub Inspector - Shivraj Singh (PW-16) deposed that on 20.09.2008 Investigating Officer had sent written-report (Exhibit-P/5) through Constable - Ajeet Singh (PW-11) to the Police Station for registration of the case. This witness has proved on record a formal registration of case i.e. First Information Report (Exhibit-P/15). 29. Vijay Shankar Sharma (PW-17), being Investigating Officer of the case, has proved various facets of the investigation. 30. No witness has been examined in defence. 31. Mr. Kaleem Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, has submitted that the present appellant was medico-legally examined by Dr. J.P. Yadav (PW-14) on the next day of the alleged occurrence i.e. on 21.09.2008. According to the Counsel, in the Injury Report (Exhibit-P/13), five injuries have been noticed on the person of the accused. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries on the person of the accused and, hence, they have suppressed the origin and genesis of the alleged occurrence. According to the Counsel, in the Injury Report (Exhibit-P/13), five injuries have been noticed on the person of the accused. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries on the person of the accused and, hence, they have suppressed the origin and genesis of the alleged occurrence. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that the prosecution witnesses are not truthful and they have withheld from the Court cause and manner in which occurrence had ensued. 32. We have perused the Injury Report (Exhibit-P/13). The appellant has suffered injuries on the non-vital parts of the body. Injury Nos.1, 2 and 3 were on the little, ring and middle finger of the right hand. The said injuries are possible in a scuffle at the time when witnesses intervened to snatch the weapon. Injury No.4 was an abrasion of size 1 x 0.5 cm. on the left ear and Injury No.5 was an abrasion having dimension of 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the right side of the nose. The very size and the nature of the injuries depict that injuries suffered by the accused are superficial. The prosecution is not bound to explain simple superficial injuries suffered by the accused in the alleged occurrence. Duration of the injuries, indeed, prove that the appellant was present at the spot. 33. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken a categoric plea that in the Bazar, deceased and three witnesses, namely Abdul Salam (PW-4), Kadir Khan (PW-8) and Nafees @ Ateeq (PW-9) met and attacked him. Having taken such a plea, the accused had not taken any further defence. As per defence raised under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accidental knife blow was caused by Nafees @ Ateeq (PW-9) to his own brother - Imran. There were four stab injuries on the person of the deceased. It is very difficult to believe that not only once but four times the accidental knife blows will be caused by Nafees @ Ateeq (PW-9) to his own brother. The appellant has not raised a plea of sudden occurrence or self-defence to say that he was attacked and, therefore, he had exercised complete right of self-defence. 34. It is a settled legal proposition of law that if the right of selfdefence is made out, same can be extended. 35. The appellant has not raised a plea of sudden occurrence or self-defence to say that he was attacked and, therefore, he had exercised complete right of self-defence. 34. It is a settled legal proposition of law that if the right of selfdefence is made out, same can be extended. 35. In the present case, from the deposition of the witnesses, no right of self-defence to the accused-appellant is discernible. 36. The prosecution has examined Shahida (PW-12), an unmarried girl, aged seventeen-years to prove the motive. 37. At the cost of repetition, we may note here that the appellant has admitted the presence of three eye-witnesses, namely Abdul Salam (PW-4), Kadir Khan (PW-8) and Nafees @ Ateeq (PW-9) at the spot. The medical evidence also corroborates ocular version. Injuries on the person of accused also make his presence stamped at the spot. The eye-witnesses, whose presence has been admitted at the spot have no animus to falsely implicate the appellant. 38. In the present case, occurrence has taken place on 20.09.2008 at 11:45 A.M., Injured reached at hospital in the same afternoon. Father of deceased presented written-report (Exhibit-P/5) on very same day at 01:00 P.M., the case was registered at Police Station, Kotwali Baran at 01:10 P.M. and special report also reached at Illaqa Magistrate on 22.09.2008 at 11:20 A.M. 39. In the present case, First Information Report (Exhibit-P/15) has been promptly lodged, it contains spontaneous version, as disclosed to the father of the deceased - Abdul Raees by the three eye-witnesses, namely Abdul Salam (PW-4), Kadir Khan (PW-8) and Nafees @ Ateeq (PW-9). The statement made by accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be used to corroborate the presence of the eye-witnesses at the time of alleged occurrence. 40. The Apex Court in the case of Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and Another, (2002) 10 S.C.C. 236 has held that the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be made a sole basis of conviction. However, the Court can rely upon the statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in whole or in part to corroborate the prosecution case. It is possible and in the given facts the Court can also rely on the inculpatory part of statement made by the accused if the exculpatory part is found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. It is possible and in the given facts the Court can also rely on the inculpatory part of statement made by the accused if the exculpatory part is found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. It would be apposite here to reproduce the following portion of the judgment :- “27. The statement made in defence by accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The law on the subject is almost settled that statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused can either be relied in whole or in part. It may also be possible to rely on the inculpatory part of his statement if the exculpatory part in found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution See Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar, AIR (1969) SC 422. “23. “In this case the exculpatory part of the statement in Ex. 6 is not only inherently improbable but is contradicted by the other evidence. According to this statement, the injury which the appellant received was caused by the appellant’s attempt to catch hold of the hand of Lal Mohan Sharma to prevent the attack on the victim. This was contradicted by the statement of the accused himself under S, 342 Cr.P.C. to the effect that he had received the injury in a scuffle with a herdsman. The injury found on his body when he was examined by the doctor on 13th October 1961 negatives both these versions. Neither of these versions accounts for the profuse bleeding which led to his washing his clothes and having a bath in the river Patro, the amount of bleeding and the washing of the blood-stains being so considerable as to attract the attention of Ram Kishore Pandey, PW 17 and asking him about the cause thereof. The bleeding was not a simple one as his clothes all got stained with blood as also his books, his exercise book and his belt and shoes. More than that the knife which was discovered on his person was found to have been stained with blood according to the report of the Chemical Examiner. The bleeding was not a simple one as his clothes all got stained with blood as also his books, his exercise book and his belt and shoes. More than that the knife which was discovered on his person was found to have been stained with blood according to the report of the Chemical Examiner. According to the post mortem report this knife could have been the cause of the injuries on the victim. In circumstances like these there being enough evidence to reject the exculpatory part of the statement of the appellant in Ex, 6 the High Court had acted rightly in accepting the inculpatory part and piercing the same with the other evidence to come to the conclusion that the appellant was the person responsible for the crime.” (emphasis supplied)” 41. Therefore, taking into account the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he has admitted his presence at the spot, we are of the firm view that portion of the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he admits his presence and presence of the eye-witnesses Abdul Salam (PW-4), Kadir Khan (PW-8) and Nafees @ Ateeq (PW-9) at the spot can be used for limited purpose to corroborate the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 42. In the present case, from the statement made by the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. not only presence of the eye-witnesses, but weapon of offence and place of occurrence also stand corroborated. 43. Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that the witness to the recovery has admitted that the weapon of offence i.e. knife recovered from the appellant was blunt. Even if we don’t rely upon the recovery of weapon, testimony of the eye-witnesses as corroborates by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is sufficient for us to uphold the conviction of the appellant, as recovery in itself shall pale into insignificance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 44. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant, has contended that since the accused had also received injuries in the occurrence, we should convert the offence. 45. The alternative argument raised is also unacceptable. In the medical evidence, it has come that the appellant has caused four stab wounds in the abdomen of the deceased. The appellant took undue advantage. There is repetition of the blows by the appellant. 45. The alternative argument raised is also unacceptable. In the medical evidence, it has come that the appellant has caused four stab wounds in the abdomen of the deceased. The appellant took undue advantage. There is repetition of the blows by the appellant. Therefore, the alternative argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant is also rejected. 46. Taking totality of circumstances, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed.