JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 25.09.2013, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar in Sessions Trial No.24 of 2009 and Sessions Trial No.25 of 2009, whereby the appellant-accused, was charged with and tried for the offences under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of six months. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW1 Ikram lodged an FIR on 18.11.2006 at 19:55 hours, to the effect, that his grandson Manjeet Singh along with his younger brother was going to the shop. The appellant all of a sudden appeared near the house of Chunni and stabbed his grandson on his chest. Sukhi was also present on the spot. Manjeet Sigh was taken to the Government hospital. He was declared dead. The postmortem was conducted by PW4 Dr. T.K. Pant. The recoveries were effected including knife from the appellant. The investigation was carried out and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in its support. The statement of the appellant-accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has denied the case of the prosecution. The appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Learned counsel on behalf of the State has supported the judgment dated 25.09.2013. 4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and record very carefully. 5. PW1 Ikram Singh has testified that Manjeet Singh was his grandson. He was 25 years of age. He knew the appellant. The incident has happened at 05:00 PM. His grandson along with his brother was going to the shop. 4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and record very carefully. 5. PW1 Ikram Singh has testified that Manjeet Singh was his grandson. He was 25 years of age. He knew the appellant. The incident has happened at 05:00 PM. His grandson along with his brother was going to the shop. The appellant attacked his grandson near the house of Chunni and injured him. The incident was witnessed by Bholey and Sukhi. The injured was taken to Govt. hospital in a tractor trolley. Manjeet Singh was declared brought dead. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that though the police check post was on the way but the FIR was not lodged. 6. PW2 Sukhi has testified that he used to come to village Ramnagar. He knew the villagers of Bhrmanagar. On 18.11.2008, he was in the village Bhrmanagar. Manjeet Singh along with his younger brother was going to the shop at 05:00 PM. In the meantime, near the house of Chunni, the appellant appeared and he took out the knife. He stabbed Manjeet Singh on the chest and thereafter, he stabbed on his back thrice. They have tried to save Manjeet. Thereafter, the appellant brandished knife and ran away. Manjeet Singh was taken to the hospital in a tractor trolley. He has admitted, in his cross-examination, that the police check post was on the way to the hospital but the FIR was not lodged. 7. PW3 Bhola Ram is another eye-witness. He has also deposed that on 18.11.2008, he was going with his brother to the shop. When he reached near the house of Chunni Lal, the appellant came out of the house carrying knife. He stabbed his brother on the chest. Thereafter, he also gave three blows on his back. In the meantime, PW2 Sukhi also came. He had seen the appellant stabbing his brother. They have tried to save Manjeet Singh. His brother told his family members that the appellant has picked up a quarrel with Manjeet Singh earlier. In his cross-examination, he has reiterated that Sukhi reached the spot before the appellant stabbed his brother. 8. PW4 Dr. T.K. Pant has noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased:- “1. Triangular shaped stab wound, sharp margins size 3.0 cm X 1.5 cm (maximum) 8.5 cm deep over left nipple, front chest, oozing of blood is present. In his cross-examination, he has reiterated that Sukhi reached the spot before the appellant stabbed his brother. 8. PW4 Dr. T.K. Pant has noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased:- “1. Triangular shaped stab wound, sharp margins size 3.0 cm X 1.5 cm (maximum) 8.5 cm deep over left nipple, front chest, oozing of blood is present. 2 Triangular shaped stab wound with sharp margins 3.0 cm X 1.5 cm, 6 cm deep. Direction of depth is downward and outward, on the back of skin and muscles. Oozing of blood is present. 3. Triangular shaped stab wound 3.0 cm X 1.5 cm, 7 cm deep. Direction of wound is downward and to the right side. On the back between two shoulders 8 cm below hair line with the tailing 3 cm in size from upper margin of wound. On direction the wound involves muscle and skin. Oozing of blood is present. 4. Triangular shaped stab wound, sharp margins 3.0 cm X 1.5 cm, 7 cm deep direction is downward and to the right. Oozing of blood is present. On direction wound involves skin and muscles.” 9. According to PW4 Dr. T.K. Pant, the cause of death of deceased was hemorrhage and shock as a result of ante mortem injury no.1 as described in external examination. 10. PW5 Pankaj Singh has deposed that he collected the samples of blood soaked soil from the spot. The appellant was arrested. The knife was recovered from his pocket. 11. PW7 K.R. Arya has also deposed that the blood soaked soil was lifted from the spot. The appellant was arrested. The knife was recovered from his pocket. 12. PW8 Pratap Singh Kadakoti has deposed that he visited the spot on 16.12.2008. 13. PW9 P.D. Joshi has deposed the manner, in which, the appellant was arrested and blood stain knife was recovered. 14. There are two eye-witnesses of the incident i.e. PW2 Sukhi and PW3 Bhola Ram. PW2 Sukhi and PW3 Bhola Ram have categorically deposed that the appellant has stabbed the deceased Manjeet Singh on his chest and thereafter, gave three blows on his back. They have tried to save him. The appellant brandish knife and ran away from the spot. Manjeet Singh was taken to the hospital. He was declared brought dead. 15. PW2 Sukhi and PW3 Bhola Ram have categorically deposed that the appellant has stabbed the deceased Manjeet Singh on his chest and thereafter, gave three blows on his back. They have tried to save him. The appellant brandish knife and ran away from the spot. Manjeet Singh was taken to the hospital. He was declared brought dead. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the statement of PW2 Sukhi cannot be believed for the simple reason that he does not belong to the same village. However, it has come in the statement of PW2 Sukhi that he had relatives in Bhrmanagar. He was present on the spot and had seen the appellant stabbing Manjeet Singh. 16. PW3 Bhola Ram was accompanying his brother to the shop, when appellant came from his house with knife. He has categorically deposed that the appellant has stabbed his brother firstly on the chest and thereafter, gave three blows on his back. The statements of PW2 Sukhi and PW3 Bhola Ram are duly corroborated by PW4 Dr. T.K. Pant. According to him, the cause of death of deceased was hemorrhage and shock as a result of ante mortem injury no.1 as described in external examination. According to PW4 Dr. T.K. Pant, the death has occurred within 12-24 hours before the postmortem examination. The knife was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Blood soaked soil was also lifted from the spot. 17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has also argued that PW1 Ikram Singh and PW2 Sukhi has occasion to file the FIR, when they were going to the hospital. The first endeavor of PW1 Ikram Singh and PW2 Sukhi was to save the life of Manjeet Singh. The FIR was registered promptly in the present case on 18.11.2008 at 19:55 hours. 18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has also argued that the scribe, who has written the FIR was not examined. It is not necessary to examine the scribe for the simple reason that he was not the eyewitness. 19. The prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, there is no occasion for us to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court. 20. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The appellant is already in jail. 19. The prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, there is no occasion for us to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court. 20. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The appellant is already in jail. He shall serve out the sentence, so awarded to him, by learned Trial Court. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent to the trial court.