JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. Validity of judgment dated 04.04.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Nagaur in Session Case No.1/2006 has been challenged by which appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of which a sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment has also been ordained. 2. The version of First Information Report Ex. P/19, reads as under :- ^lsok esa Jheku Fkkusnkj lkgc Fkkuk tk;y vtZ gS fd vkt lqcg djhch 6 cts lR;ukjk;.k lqukj esjs yM+ds iquepUn dks jkensojk ;kf=;ksa ds fy;s Vs.V yxkus ds fy;s Msxkuk frjkgk ukxkSj ij yk;k Fkk ftldks uUnyky iq= ekykjke lWir iq= psulq[k tsBey iq= uUnyky inek jke iq= Hkxkukjke o rkjk nsoh iRuh uUnyky lc tkfr czkgk.k mej djhch 50 m0 37 m0 32 m0 25 m0 45 fuoklh xzke rjukm us esjs yM+ds iquepUn ds eqag esa diM+k Bwaldj pkdq Nqjk ls ekj fn;k gSA gekjk igys ls eqdnekckph py jgh gS tks ldhj ftlls esjs csVs dks tku ls ekj fn;k gSA ?kVuk ds le; lrukjk.k ekStwn Fkk fjiksVZ djrk gwaA dk;Zokgh djsa esjs csVs dh yk'k ekSdk ij iM+h gSA lgh uFkey czkgk.k fuoklh&rjukm rk0 01-09-2005* and this FIR was registered under Sections 147, 302 of IPC on 01.09.2005 at 8.40 a.m., after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and post framing of charge under Section 302 IPC, prosecution produced eighteen witnesses and got exhibited thirty documentary exhibits, and after recording of statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., two witnesses, namely, DW-1 Rameshwar Lal and DW-2 Bhagwana Ram were examined by the appellant-accused and seventeen documents were also produced and got exhibited. The learned trial court, after examining and appreciating entire evidence, convicted the appellant-accused with the aforesaid sentence. 3. Heard submissions of both the sides, learned counsel for the appellant-accused has contended that learned trial court has committed error in passing the impugned judgment and evidence adduced has not properly been evaluated and prosecution has failed to produce positive evidence, despite the learned trial court has felt in error by passing the impugned judgment convicting the appellant-accused. 3. Heard submissions of both the sides, learned counsel for the appellant-accused has contended that learned trial court has committed error in passing the impugned judgment and evidence adduced has not properly been evaluated and prosecution has failed to produce positive evidence, despite the learned trial court has felt in error by passing the impugned judgment convicting the appellant-accused. While referring several recitals of the evidence, learned counsel has said that the alleged injuries cannot be attributed to have been caused by the appellant-accused and benefit of doubt had to be extended and has further contended to allow the appeal and has submitted that after setting aside the impugned judgment, the appellant-accused be released. Contrariwise, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that trial court has not committed any flaw in passing the impugned judgment because there are several eye-witnesses, who have corroborated the incident and the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case beyond the realms of suspicion, nothing wrong or infirmity is there in the impugned judgment, which is liable to be confirmed since appeal does not have got any force. 4. Heard both the counsels and examined the material available on record and minutely gone through the evidence. Perusal of statement made by appellant-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. shows that he has denied the interrogatories and has expressed his ignorance regarding the questionaries and has admitted that there was animocity between both the sides and revenue suits were subjudice against the deceased, whereas the defence evidence adduced by the appellant-accused demonstrate that appellant-accused was away to some other place at the time of the alleged incident as DW-one Rameshwar has said that when he visited at bera, Jetha Ram was there in the residence of the deponent and he had heard that the deceased was hit by certain vehicle but in his cross-examination, he has said that he did not inform to any police authority regarding innocence of Jethmal. DW-1 Bhagwana Ram has also asserted certain dispute with Nathmal, Bhanwarlal, Rajaram, Poonamchand, Bajranglal, Satya Narayan, Suresh, Damu, Sairi and Parma and has stated story of some another beating and lodging of FIR thereof and has said that because of that animocity, Jethmal was wrongly framed, in cross-examination, he has said that it is true that Jethmal is his nephew. 5. Ex. 5. Ex. P/17, postmortem report of deceased Poonam Chand discloses 11 plus 4 injuries, which have been opined to be caused ante-mortem and all stab and penetrative wounds were found profusely bleeding and cause of death has been opined that "the death is caused by multiple stab and penetrative wounds leading to profuse bleeding and shock by sharp pointed and cutting instrument." 6. There is Ex. P/18 an injury report of appellant-accused, Jetharam @Jethmal, relates to 01.09.2005 disclosing three injuries to the appellantaccused Jetha Ram @ Jethmal S/o Nandlal. PW-15 Dr. Vinay Kulshresth has also corroborated this document by saying that the day on which he had conducted postmortem of the deceased, he had also examined Jethmal vide injury report Ex.P/18 at 10.45 p.m. and found following injuries:- ^1- ykbZuuqek dVk 0-5 x 0-1 lseh0 peM+h dh xgjkbZ rd nkfgus vaxwBs ds vk/kkj ij tks rtZuh vaxqyh o vaxwBs ds chp esa ik;k x;kA 2- ykbZuuqek dV 0-5 x 0-1 lseh0 tks peM+h dh xgjkbZ rd tks nkfgus vaxwBs ds mijh Hkkx ij FkkA 3- [kjksap&1 x 1 lseh0 ck;sa gkFk ds dksguh ds i`"B Hkkx ij ik;h x;hA pksV la[;k 1 ,oa 2 lk/kkj.k /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls ,ao pksV la[;k 3 lk/kkj.k os dqan gfFk;kj ls dkfjr gksuk ikbZ x;h FkhA pksVksa dh vof/k 12 ls 18 ?k.Vs ds chp dh FkhA ih&18 esjk dyeh gS] ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj o lh ls Mh vkgr dk igpku fpg vafdr gSA* 7. Ex. P/19 FIR has been lodged by Santosh, which is specifically and distinctly named against Jethmal and this witness has been examined by the prosecution as PW- 8 and in his ocular evidence, this witness has said that the incident belongs to 4½ months back, he was going to Yash Hotel for the work of preparing tea, which is situated on Nagaur-Jayal Road, a tent was pitched on Degana Road, where Poonam Chand was standing, he stayed there and asked Poonam Chand as to what was he doing there and Poonam Chand replied that he is pitching tent for providing shade and the tent belonged to Satyanarayan Soni, he has also said an important fact that Jethmal S/o Nandlal came from the side of village and soon approaching there, he started thrashing Poonam Chand. Jethmal was having a long dagger in his hand, which was katari, akin to knife, it was 7-8" lengthy,, abruptly coming over there, he started inflicting it, on the chest of Poonam Chand. He tried to spare, Poonam Chand was under pool of blood. He has further said that after seeing dagger in the hand of Jethmal, he started thudering. Poonam Chand fell down after sustaining injuries, then Jethmal, after getting freed, again started inflicting dagger blows on the back of fallen Poonam Chand. He has also said that when Jethmal came, he was wearing baniyan and his shirt was on his shoulder, which got pressed and entangled under the body of Poonam Chand. He has also said that when he was about to move after the dispute, Satyanarayan Soni came there, then he told him that spare Jethmal, who is being thrashed by Poonam Chand, then he went to hotel and after 2-3 minutes Satyanarayan came there and telephoned to Nathmal, father of Poonam Chand. This witness has elaborately been cross-examined but nothing adverse has come out. 8. PW-12 Satya Narayan Soni has said that he had got tent installed there and had gone to fetch chairs, Santosh met him and apprised about the dispute. He has also said that when he went to tent with the chairs, he found, Poonam Chand was lying there in a "prone position" and a stripped white shirt was under his body. He has also said that Jethmal was thrashing Poonam Chand with a dagger and he had witnessed him inflicting injuries upon the back of Poonam Chand, he rushed towards the incident and wanted to know, what wrong was going on, Jethmal did not reply and went away towards village. Poonam Chand was bleeding, he has also said that when Jethmal was inflicting knife injuries upon Poonam Chand, then he was 3-4 ft. away, he has further said that after rushing to Yash Hotel, he made a phone to Nathmal, father of Poonam Chand. Poonam Chand was bleeding, he has also said that when Jethmal was inflicting knife injuries upon Poonam Chand, then he was 3-4 ft. away, he has further said that after rushing to Yash Hotel, he made a phone to Nathmal, father of Poonam Chand. He has further narrated that on motor-cycle, the injured was taken to Tarnau Bus Stand and after arranging a jeep, went to call Nathmal and Nathmal met near katte, he was taken in the jeep and they came back to tent, and thought to take Poonam Chand to hospital, then people standing there informed that Poonam Chand was no more, he has also said that he had asked Poonam Chand in the morning for preparing tea and after assigning care of milk to him, he had gone to fetch chair, this witness has elaborately been cross-examined but nothing of this nature has come out, which could weaken his testimony. 9. PW-15 Dr. Vinay Kulshrestha has also corroborated Postmortem Report Ex. P/17 and has distinctly narrated all the injuries and has further said that all the injuries were ante-mortem and profusely bleeding and injury Nos. 1 to 11 were caused by knife or gupti, kind of sharp weapon, bleeding was going on from all the injuries and "the injuries were sufficient to cause death. Perusal of Ex. P/17, Postmortem Report also ratifies, evidence of this witness and the opinion as mentioned on Ex. P/17 regarding death of corpus says that, "in my opinion, the death is caused by multiple stab and penetrative sounds leading to profuse bleeding and shock by sharp pointed and cutting instruments". 10. FSL Report Ex. P/30, which relates to detection of 'A' Group Blood states that 'A' Group Blood was found from Ex.2B blood smeared soil; Ex.4, 6 from D shirt and baniyan; Ex.9E pant and Ex.10F katari were found smeared with stains of 'A' Group Blood, as such, 'A' Group Blood has been found on the apparels of the deceased as well as upon the apparel of appellant-accused and upon the dagger - weapon of assault, involved in the incident and recovered on the instance of the accused-appellant and so far as recovery of dagger is concerned, it is well established and it has been detected on the information provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex. P/24 whose spot map is Ex. P/24 whose spot map is Ex. P/10 and the recovery has been made vide Ex.P/9, which is well corroborated by oral testimony of PW-11 Bajranglal and PW-4 Babulal, which is correctly ratified by the Investigating Officer PW-18 Santosh Singh as well, it is pertinent to mention that the Exhibits elucidated with respect to FSL relates to internal Exhibits of FSL report. 11. PW-1 Kamal is a witness of Ex. P/1 Panchnama and Ex. P/2 recovery of blood stained shirt, likewise PW-2 Tejaram is a witness of Ex. P/3 spot map and PW-3 Chelaram is a witness of Ex. P/2 recovery of blood stained shirt. PW-4 Babulal has also corroborated Ex. P/4, P/5, P/6 and P/7 as well. PW-5 Manoj is witness to Ex. P/1 and PW-6 Ramkishore corroborated Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/5. PW-7, Pasa Ram has corroborated Ex. P/6. PW-11 Bajranglal has also corroborated Ex.P/7, P/8, P/9 and P/10. PW- 13, Rajaram has ratified Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/13, in cross-examinations of these witnesses, nothing abnormal has emerged. PW-14 malkhana incharge, has ratified testimonies relating to Ex. P/14, Ex. P/15 and P/16, which relate to deposit and transmission of FSL Samples. 12. PW-16 Nathmal, father of the deceased, has narrated, entire chronology of the incident as witnessed by him and has narrated everything relating to receiving of information and visit to the spot and witnessing the scene thereof and lodging of FIR Ex.P/19 and has Ex.P/1, P/3, P/20 and P/21, he has also said that accused Jethmal is the same person with whom hostility of his deceased son was existing because of litigation amongst them. 13. PW-17 Ramsukh is a testimony regarding deposit of FSL Samples and he has corroborated Ex.P/15 and P/16 and has specifically said that the FSL Samples were deposited in a well secured position. PW-18 is Investigating Officer Santosh Singh, has corroborated entire chronology of conducting investigation and exhibits relating thereto and during the course of testimony, has corroborated articles regarding recovery of the exhibits thereof, he has also said that, "it emerged from the investigation that the accused sustained injuries during the incident itself", he has also corroborated facts of recovery, which has been narrated and confirmed by independent witnesses. Nothing abnormal or causing any untoward has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness. Nothing abnormal or causing any untoward has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness. Link Evidence pertaining to recovery and deposit of material and further its examination are well connected and all the evidence produced by the prosecution has properly corroborated, its deposit in the FSL and there appears no infirmity or breakage of link, so the link evidence does also fortify the case of the prosecution. 14. Accused Jethmal has failed to explain, the injuries sustained by him vide Exhibit 18 and nothing of that kind has been narrated or uttered as to how he sustained those injuries, on the contrary, a plea of alibi has been raised by him in his defence evidence, which too appears to be flimsy, after perusal of the entire evidence of both the sides, because the investigating Officer has also said that the injuries found on the body of the accused were relating to the same incident, which amply indicate occurrence of some fierce scuffling engagement between deceased and the accused person, facts and veracity of which was wilfully withheld by the accused. 15. Evaluation of entire evidence as dwelt above, is suffice to indicate that the prosecution has given its positive evidence and has succeeded in establishing, its case beyond the contours of suspicion and the case of the prosecution is based on reliable ocular evidence, supported with medical evidence, as well. Nothing is there to convey that there exists any infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment because evaluation and appreciation of the evidence manifestly and indelibly connects the appellant-accused with the crime. Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding Seveka Perumal v. State of Tamilnadu, (1991) 3 SC 471 has held by cautioning in the following words, "Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice (delivery) system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats. If the Courts did not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance. It is, therefore, the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc." Hence, we are of the view that there appears no reason to interfere with the findings of the Learned Trial Court, which deserves to be confirmed and so, we confirm the same. Therefore, the Appeal being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.