JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - In order to expedite hearing of the convicts languishing in jails, the present criminal appeal is listed for hearing today before us in view of constitution of special bench for the purpose of expediting hearing of such appeals. 2. In the instant matter, Amicus Curiae was appointed to assist the Court. The matter was listed on 7.10.2017 but nobody was present on behalf of the appellant, therefore, the matter was adjourned for two weeks. Again 25.11.2017, iearned Amicus Curiae was not present, therefore, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, again on 16.12.2017, learned Amicus Curiae was not present, therefore, the matter was adjourned. 3. Today, the matter is listed for hearing but learned Amicus curiae is not present. Hence, we are left with no option except to hear learned Public Prosecutor and decide the appeal after taking into consideration relevant record of the case. We do so. 4. The present appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment dated 10.6.2011 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 157/2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced for life imprisonment as under:- 302 I.P.C. Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months simple imprisonment. 307 I.P.C. 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 326 I.P.C. 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 325 I.P.C. 3 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment. 323 I.P.C. six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo seven days simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently 5. Brief facts necessary to be narrated are that a complaint was filed on 25.6.2008 to the Station House Officer. 323 I.P.C. six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo seven days simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently 5. Brief facts necessary to be narrated are that a complaint was filed on 25.6.2008 to the Station House Officer. Police Station, Jhadol, District Udaipur by one Thawar Chand to the effect that today i.e. on 25.6.2008 at around 10:00 am, his wife Nathi Bai was grazing cattle in the field of Lalu ram S/o Kamji, while she was in the field of Lalu, Deva S/o Bhaira came with an axe in his hand and gave blows on the head of his wife. At the same time, his mother Mangudi and nephew Rahul who were standing in the nearby field came running to rescue his wife. Deca gave axe blows to his mother Mangudi as well as his nephew. In the meantime Ambava Jl S/o Vaisa and Bhaira S/o Vaisa Khokhariya reached the spot and tried to save the injured. Deva ran away from the spot. Thereafter, his brother Kishan telephoned him and on reaching there, his wife told him that all three of them were given axe blows with intention of killing by Deva. All the three injured i.e. his wife Nathi Bai, mother Mangudi and nephew Rahul having injuries on their heads were taken to Jhadol Hospital for treatment. It was further stated in the complaint that due to some old enmity, Deva assaulted injuries to them by axe. On this report, an F.I.R. was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. and investigation commenced. The police investigated the matter and filed challan under Section 302 I.P.C. as Mangudi died during the treatment. The charges were framed against accused-appellant under Sections 302, 307, 325, 326 and 323 I.P.C. On charges having been framed, the accused-appellant denied the same and preferred trail. 6. 19 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 23 documents were exhibited during the course of trial. No. defence witness was produced by the appellant. The appellant was confronted with the material evidence produced during the trial under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 to which the appellant submitted that he is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not given any injury to anybody and he has also not given axe blows. 7. The appellant was confronted with the material evidence produced during the trial under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 to which the appellant submitted that he is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not given any injury to anybody and he has also not given axe blows. 7. Learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by both the sides and after taking into consideration, the statements of witnesses and documents exhibited, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 10.6.2011. 8. In order to appreciate the facts in the matter, we have scanned the entire record and examined statements recorded during the trial. 9. PW-7 Nathudi in her statement stated that on 25.6.2008 at around 10:00 am while she was grazing cattle in the field of Lalu situated on the rear side of her house, her nephew Rahul and mother-in-law Mangudi were also there, Deva came on the spot with an axe in his hand and gave axe blows on the left side of her head. When she raised hue and cry Mangudi and Rahul tried to rescue her then Deva gave axe blows on the head of rahul and Mangudi and thereafter, Meerki came there, thereafter her husband on telephone. She was taken to Jhadol Hospital and thereafter to Udaipur where she was admitted in ward No. 16 Mangudi, her mother-in-law passed away during the treatment. She in not aware of the reason of such beating. 10. PW-1 Ambava Ji stated in his stated that at around 10:00 am 5-6 months back while Nathi Bai was grazing her cattle in the field of Lalu, Deva S/o Bhaira came with an axe in his hand and gave beating to Nathi Bai. When Nathi Bai raised hue and cry then Rahul and Mangudi ran towards her and they were also given axe blows on their heads by accused Devi. He and Bhaira were taking in the field of Lalu them on hearing the noise, they ran towards Nathi Bai and saw that accused Deva ran away. Broather-in-law of Nathi named Kishan telephoned Thawra Ram who reached the spot and took the injured to the hospital. During the treatment, at around 8-9:00 pm, Mangudi passed away. 11. He and Bhaira were taking in the field of Lalu them on hearing the noise, they ran towards Nathi Bai and saw that accused Deva ran away. Broather-in-law of Nathi named Kishan telephoned Thawra Ram who reached the spot and took the injured to the hospital. During the treatment, at around 8-9:00 pm, Mangudi passed away. 11. PW-3 Bhaira stated in his statement that 5 months back, when he and Ambave were talking in the field of Lalu, Nathi Bai was grazing her cattle in the field of Lalu. Deva with axe came to the field and gave axe blows at the head of Nathi. Rahul and Mangudi also reached the spot who were also given axe blows on their heads. He, Ambava Ji and Thawar Chand ran towards the spot then Deva fled from the spot with axe and thereafter, the injured were admitted to the hospital he has stated that the entire incident was narrated to him by his aunt Mangudi and there is no enmity between them. 12. PW-5 Meerki stated in her statement that when she was at her house on 25.6.2008, while Nathi was grazing her cattle in the field of Lalu, Deva came with an axe in his hand and gave axe blows to Nathi two or three on her head. On raising alarm, her mother-inlaws, Rahul and prakash ran towards the spot. Rahul and her mother-in-laws were also given axe blows. On hearing the noise, she also ran towards the spot. When Deva ran before her also, she escaped from the spot. Her mother-in-law died thereafter. 13. PW-2 Thawar Chand stated on 25.6.2008 while Nathi was grazing her cattle in the field of Lalu, he was at his work. His brother Kishan called him. After receiving the call, he immediately reached the spot on his motorcycle. On reaching the spot, he saw that his wife Nathi Bai, mother Mangudi and rahul were injured, out of three two were seriously injured. Thereafter, they were taken to the Jhadol Hospital by a Jeep. He and Station House Officer asked his wife as to who had given beating then Nathi Bai told that Deva has given beating. He further stated that his mother and Rahul were also given beating. All three of them were seriously injured and were taken to the hospital at Udaipur. Thereafter, at around in the mid night his mother expired. He and Station House Officer asked his wife as to who had given beating then Nathi Bai told that Deva has given beating. He further stated that his mother and Rahul were also given beating. All three of them were seriously injured and were taken to the hospital at Udaipur. Thereafter, at around in the mid night his mother expired. He submitted a report upon which he affixed his signatures. The police thereafter inspected the site, prepared the site map, prepared 'Panchnama' of the dead body of Mangudi, on which he affixed his signatures. Other Fard/document i.e. delivery memo of the dear body, blood stained soil, plain soil, recovery of blood stained clothes of Mangudi, blood stained clothes of Rahul and Nathi were prepared and he attested the same by putting his signatures on such fards. 14. PW-14 Amba Lal and PW-6 Ram Ji are the attesting witnesses of the site plan and samples of soil with and without blood. 15. PW-8 stated in his statement that axe was recovered from the house of Deva and hi is an attesting witness of recovery of axe. 16. PW-9 Bahadur Singh Stated in his statement that he was posted as a constable at Police Station, Jhadol and In Charge of the Malkhana Lalit Kumar gave him 10 sealed packets for depositing the same in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Udaipur. He deposited the same and took the receipt of the articles deposited. 17. PW-10 Narendra Kumar Dakam who was an Associate Professor in the R and T Medical Collage, Udaipur conducted X-Ray of Rahul stated that X-Ray report was signed by him in which there was fracture in the frontal and parietal bone of Rahul. 18. PW-11 Lalit Kumar was working as a Constable at Police Station, Jhadol. He stated that he gave Malkhana articles to Constable Bahadur Singh for depositing the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Udaipur. 19. PW-12 Dr. Akhilesh Sharma stated that he was posted on the post of Medical Jurist and he conducted postmortem of the deceased Mangudi W/o Koja Damor. He states that following injuries were present on the body of the deceased:- 1. Lacerated would 6x2 cm into bone deep on the rear side of the head. 2. Incised wound 3x1 cm bone deep on the right side of head. 3. Stitched wound 1 cm on the center of forehead. 4. He states that following injuries were present on the body of the deceased:- 1. Lacerated would 6x2 cm into bone deep on the rear side of the head. 2. Incised wound 3x1 cm bone deep on the right side of head. 3. Stitched wound 1 cm on the center of forehead. 4. Stitched wound 1 cm long on the left side of the forehead. 20. He further stated that the injuries were cause within 12 hours and the injury No. 1 was caused by blunt weapon. Injury No. 2 was caused by sharp edged weapon. Though both the injuries were grievous and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course, the injury Nos. 3 and 4 were simple in nature. 21. PW-13 Laxman is an attesting witness of blood stained clothes of Rahul and Mangudi. He also attested the Panchnama of the dead body of deceased Mangudi. 22. PW-14 Dr. Tara Chand Gupta stated that he was working on the post of Medical Officer at CHC, Jhadol examined and treated Rahul and found that following injuries were present on his body:- 1. Incised wound 2x.5cm bone deep over the left eve. 2. Lacerated wound 1cm x 1cm bone deep over the injury No. 1 i.e. on the upper part of left eye. 3. Swelling over the left eye. 4. Lacerated wound 1cm x .05cm bone deep on the occipital region of the head. 5. Lacerated wound 2cm x 1cm bone deep on the left side of the parietal region. 23. Out of these five injuries, the injury No. 1 was caused by a sharp edged weapon and rest of the injuries were caused by kudala weapon and were simple. He further stated that on the same day, he examined the injuries sustained on the body of Smt. Nathi W/o Thawar Chand and prepared the injury report stating following injuries 1. Lacerated wound 1cm x0.5cm skin deep on vertex region of head. 2. lacerated wound 4cm x 1cm bone deep on the parietal region of head. 3. Incised wound 3cm x 0.5cm skin deep on the parietal region of head and pain in the chest on the left side. 24. He further stated that the injury No. 3 was caused by sharp edged weapon and rest of the injuries were caused by pickaxe (Kudali). Injury No. 1 and 4 were simple and opinion on injury No. 2 and 3 were reserved. 24. He further stated that the injury No. 3 was caused by sharp edged weapon and rest of the injuries were caused by pickaxe (Kudali). Injury No. 1 and 4 were simple and opinion on injury No. 2 and 3 were reserved. He stated that he also examined Smt. Mangudi and prepared injury showing following injuries:- 1. Incised wound 3cm x 0.5cm bone deep over the right ear. 2. Lacerated wound 1cm x 0.5cm skin deep in front side of the forehead. 3. Lacerated wound 1cm x 0.5cm skin deep in the frontal eminence region on the left side of the head. 4. Blood from left ear. 25. He further stated that out of these injuries, the injury No. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon and rest of the injuries were caused by Pickaxe (Kudali) and information on all these injuries were reserved. 26. PW-15 is Bhuri Lal who is an attesting witness of axe and site plan. 27. PW-18 Narpat Singh who was working as Station House Officer at Police Station, Jhadol on 25.6.2008. He stated that on receiving telephone call, he reached at CHC, Jhadol, Thawarchand submitted a report which was sent to Police Station with constable Sanjay Kuamr finding it to be under Section 307 I.P.C. Thereafter, investigation was made. He inspected the site of occurrence collected samples, recorded statements of the witnesses and got the injuries medically examined and obtained reports, recovered articles were deposited in the Malkhana. He arrested accused Deva. On the basis of the information, got the weapon namely axe recovered. Thereafter, since he was transferred, he submitted the entire record of investigation to the Station House Officer named Jala Ram for further investigation. 28. PW-19 Jala Ram who was Station House Officer, Police Station, Jhadol stated that after receiving the investigation papers of case No. 73/2008, he conducted the investigation and sent samples collected to the FSL, Udaipur and recorded the statement of Bahadur Singh and thereafter, filed charge sheet before the competent Court. 29. No defence witness was produced on the side of accused during the trial. 30. We have also gone through the postmortem report of Smt. Mangudi wherein the cause of death is "come due to head injuries as a result of ante-mortem injuries and injury No. 1 and 2 are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature". 29. No defence witness was produced on the side of accused during the trial. 30. We have also gone through the postmortem report of Smt. Mangudi wherein the cause of death is "come due to head injuries as a result of ante-mortem injuries and injury No. 1 and 2 are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature". Further, the injury report of Rahul having five injuries and Smt. Mangudi having four injuries and Nathi having four injuries. Besides this, there is FSL report which shows that blood stains of human origin were found on the articles recovered. 31. Since, the learned Amicus Curiae has not appeared for assistance, we ourselves have scanned the entire record an heard learned Public Prosecutor. 32. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment dated 10.6.2011 on the ground that the statements recorded during the trial are consistently pointing towards the guilt of the accused as there is no infirmity or deviation in the statements recorded. He further submits that the injured eye-witness namely Mathudi (PW-7) has very categorically stated that Deva has given axe blows to her, Rahul and Mangudi with intention to kill them. Injuries on the body of Smt. Nathudi besides injury report of Rahul corroborates the fact of presence of Nathude on the place of the occurrence. He further submits that chain of events in the present case is complete and when there is direct evidence coupled with the factum of recovery of blood stained weapon used in the commission of the crime in question. The involvement of accused in the crime cannot be rules out and is thus, proved beyond shadow of doubt. Hence, the judgment of convection passed by learned Trial Court is just and proper. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 33. The statements of Smt. Nathudi, Ambava and Bhaira are on the same lines with respect to the commission of offence by accused Deva. A close reading of the statements further establishes the fact that it was the accused Deva who caused injuries to Smt. Nathudi, Rahul and deceased Mangudi. While Nathudi was grazing cattle in the field of Lalu, she was given axe blows on her head and thereafter, injuries were also given on the body of Rahul and Mangudi. Thereafter accused Deva ran away from the spot. The statement to the same effect has been deposed by Ambava and Bhaira. While Nathudi was grazing cattle in the field of Lalu, she was given axe blows on her head and thereafter, injuries were also given on the body of Rahul and Mangudi. Thereafter accused Deva ran away from the spot. The statement to the same effect has been deposed by Ambava and Bhaira. Since there is no deviation in the statements of these witness, there is no reason for us to disbelieve the same. 34. The ocular version of the incident by the injured eye-witness is best evidence in the case, if the same is corroborated and there is no deviation in the testimony of other corroborating witnesses. 35. Statement of Smt. Nathudi who is an injured eye-witness is supported by the statements of Ambava and Bhaira. Since, Smt. Nathudi was an injured eyewitness giving minute details of the incident and the same gets corroborated with other evidence produced during trial. The testimony of the same is an unflinching piece of evidence worth relying in the present case. 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 259 held as under:- "28. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. That is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to lest his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus the deposition of the inured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein". 37. Presence of accused on the spot on the date of the incident is also well established as the injuries sustained by Smt. Nathudi and medical reports with respect to the injuries of other persons i.e. Rahul and Mangudi further corroborates the statements of other witnesses who have narrates in their statements involvement of accused Deva in the present case. 38. The postmortem report of Smt. Mangudi shows cause of death to be an assault with a sharp edged weapon. 38. The postmortem report of Smt. Mangudi shows cause of death to be an assault with a sharp edged weapon. The injuries sustained by Nathudi and Rahul corroborate the fact of statements made by the eye-witnesses that the injuries were caused by accused Deva with axe on the vital parts of their body with intention to kill them. Therefore, the postmortem report, injury report and statement of PW-14 Dr. Tara Chand Gupta support and corroborate the prosecution case. 39. Recovery of the axe from the house of accused Deva on the information given by him shows involvement of accused in the present case. The weapon used in the crime is established by the presence of blood of human origin as per the FSL report completes the chain corroborating the statements of the witnesses recorded during the trial. There is nothing to show or suggest that the accused Deva has been falsely implicated in the present case. No. defence witness has been produced by the accused Deva in the present case. 40. In view of whatever stated above, we are of the view that the judgment dated 10.6.2011 is upheld and the conviction recorded and sentence awarded is thus, maintained. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby rejected.