JUDGMENT Goverdhan Bardhar, J. - In both the criminal appeals the accused appellants-Anil and Santosh have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.02.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.6, Kota (Raj.) in Sessions C.I.S. No. 72/2013 whereby the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced both the accused appellants as under: (Accused Anil) U/s. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 70,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused appellant was to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 307 IPC Ten years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused appellant was to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months. U/s. 341 IPC One month simple imprisonment. U/s. 504 IPC One year simple imprisonment. U/s. 4/25 of the Arms Act One year simple imprisonment. (Accused Santosh) U/s. 302/34 IPC : Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 70,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused appellant was to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 307/34 IPC: Ten years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused appellant was to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months. U/s. 341 IPC One month simple imprisonment. U/s. 504 IPC One year simple imprisonment. (All the sentences shall run concurrently) 2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 16.05.2009 at 12:30 A.M. complainant Animesh Shah submitted a written report (Ex.P15) at M.B.S. Hospital, Kota, to the S.H.O. Police Station Nayapura, Kota to the effect that on 15.05.2009 at around 11:00 P.M. he along-with his friend Vivek Kumar Singh was going on a motorcycle for taking meal at Amar Punjabi Dhaba. He and Vivek were on one motorcycle and his two other friends Abhishek and Satyam were on another motorcycle and their motorcycle was going at some distance ahead to them. Near Bud Tiraha, three persons came on one motorcycle from their back side and started to abuse after stopping them without any reason. The complainant further mentioned that he was talking to Abhishek on phone. When he was making a call to Abhishek, during that period, the person who was sitting in the last inflicted a knife below on the abdomen of Vikek. The complainant further mentioned that he was talking to Abhishek on phone. When he was making a call to Abhishek, during that period, the person who was sitting in the last inflicted a knife below on the abdomen of Vikek. Out of these three persons, one person who was sitting in the last and who attacked Vivek with the knife, while fleeing, he also made attack upon him. He tried to catch hold of the aforesaid person, but in the attempt, he could get a piece of T-shirt of the person only. The complainant further mentioned that he received knife injury on his back and head injury in assault with belt by other person. Neither, they have any enmity nor accused were known to them, however, he can identify the accused persons if they appear before him. Vivek was taken by them in an auto to the hospital for treatment, where during the course of treatment Vivek succumbed to knife injury. On the basis of aforesaid written report, an FIR No.234/2009 was registered at Police Station, Nayapura, Kota, for the offences under sections 302, 307, 504, 341/34 IPC. 3. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. After taking cognizance in the matter by the learned trial court against the accused persons, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota, from where the case was transferred to the learned trial court. The learned trial court thereafter framed the charge against accused persons under sections 341, 504/34, 307 or 307/34, 302/34 IPC and also against accused Anil under section 4/25 of the Arms Act, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case recorded the statements of twenty witnesses and seventy six documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the accused appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 In defence, the accused appellant did not produce any evidence. The learned trial court after considering the evidence led during the course of trial convicted and sentenced the accused appellants for the charges levelled against them vide impugned judgment dated 20.02.2017. The accused appellants aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence have preferred instant criminal appeals. 4. Mr. The learned trial court after considering the evidence led during the course of trial convicted and sentenced the accused appellants for the charges levelled against them vide impugned judgment dated 20.02.2017. The accused appellants aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence have preferred instant criminal appeals. 4. Mr. Deepak Asopa, learned counsel for the accused appellants argued that the entire record was prepared by the police contrary to the statutory Police Rules, 1956, therefore, it has vitiated the investigation/ trial. Learned trial court failed to record judgment on sound principles of law that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of legal proof and there may be a grave suspicion against an accused person, still the prosecution is bound to establish facts from which the Court can reasonably arrived at a conclusion that the offence was committed by the accused. Learned counsel argued that the conduct of the witnesses in the present case is such that it renders the case of the prosecution doubtful and incredible and their presence at the place of occurrence as witness is suspected. The evidence on record is not reliable and trustworthy and the learned trial court has wrongly read and misappreciated the evidence and arrived at grossly unjust conclusion. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are full of omissions, contradictions and improvements which not only cast a serious doubt on the case of prosecution but also support this fact that the prosecution wants to falsely implicate the appellants. Learned counsel further argued that even though the alleged recoveries are doubtful and has not been proved by the prosecution and the learned trial court on the uncorroborated testimony of witnesses relied on the prosecution version, which is contrary to the settled preposition of law. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the averments made in the appeals and supported the impugned Judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court. Learned Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of the Court towards the previous conduct of the accused appellants that prior to registration of the aforesaid case, 16 criminal cases were earlier registered against accused Anil. Out of 16 criminal cases, in one criminal case bearing No.234/2009, registered for the offences under sections 302, 307, 341, 323, 324, 504, 34 IPC and 4/25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Nayapura, Kota, he has been convicted by the learned Addl. Out of 16 criminal cases, in one criminal case bearing No.234/2009, registered for the offences under sections 302, 307, 341, 323, 324, 504, 34 IPC and 4/25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Nayapura, Kota, he has been convicted by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.6, Kota to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lac and two cases are still pending against him. So far as accused appellant Sanotsh is concerned, prior to this case, 22 criminal cases were registered against him. Five cases are still pending against him and in six cases he has been convicted by the learned trial court. In some of the cases they have been acquitted either because of compromise or because of witnesses did not support case of the prosecution due to fear of accused. Thus, both the accused appellants are hard core criminals. 6. The prosecution case is based on the testimony of eye witnesses Animesh Shah (PW4), Abhishek Kumar Tyagi (PW8) and Satyam Anand (PW14). 7. Complainant Animesh Shah (PW-4) deposed that on 15.5.2009 at about 11:00 P.M. when he and his three friends were going for taking meal then near Bud Tiraha, three persons came on black colour motorcycle. The person who was sitting on the back of these persons abused to Vivek. Thereafter he informed from his phone to his friends Abhishek and Satyam about the quarrel so taken place, whose motor-cycle was ahead to them. This witness further deposed that out of these three persons one person who was whitish attacked upon Vivek from knife. Vivek was inflicted 2-3 knife blows on the left side of abdomen and upon chest. When Vivek tried to get free himself, he was inflicted a knife blow on his wrist. Remaining two other persons also gave beating to him from belts. When these three persons tried to ran away, he tried to catch hold of them. During the course of incident whitish colour person inflicted a knife blow on his back and right shoulder. This witness in cross-examination deposed on arrival of Satyam and Abhishek. They took Vivek in Auto to M.B.S Hospital, where he died during the course of treatment. He deposed that he was summoned to identify the accused persons in presence of the Magistrate. This witness in cross-examination deposed on arrival of Satyam and Abhishek. They took Vivek in Auto to M.B.S Hospital, where he died during the course of treatment. He deposed that he was summoned to identify the accused persons in presence of the Magistrate. This witness deposed that in test identification parade of accused Anil, Sheru and Santosh conducted before the Magistrate, he identified all the accused appellants. 8. Abhishek Kumar Tyagi (PW8) deposed that he and Vivek, Animesh and Satyam were going on motorcycle to Amar Punjabi Dhaba for taking meal. One motorcycle was being driven by Animesh and on his back Vivek was sitting. This witness deposed that he was riding another motorcycle and on his back Satyam was sitting. On 'Bud Tiraha' their motorcycle was ahead of their motorcycle. When they reached near Doordarshan, a call of Animesh came on his phone regarding the incident. This witness deposed that when they reached the spot, they saw that Animesh was having injury on his head and blood was oozing out from the back side of his shoulder. This witness further deposed that they stopped one auto. Thereafter they took Vivek to M.B.S. Hospital where he died during the course of treatment. This witness further deposed that there were four injuries on the person of deceased. Two were on the head, one was on chest, one was on liver. 9. Satyam (PW14) deposed that he and Abhishek, Animesh and Vivek was going on two different motorcycles to take meal towards Railway Station. When they reached near Doordarshan, he received call of Animesh on call phone of Abhishek and he (Animesh) told them three persons have quarreled with them and he told to come. 10. Dr. Deepak Sharma (PW1) deposed that on 16.05.2009 he was working as Medical Jurist in M.B.S. Hospital, Kota. On that day, he examined the injuries received by Animesh Shah. During the course of examination he found four injuries on the person of Animesh Shah. All the injuries were simple in nature. Injuries No.1 and 2 were by sharp edged weapon and injuries No.3 and 4 were of blunt weapon. This witness further deposed that on 17.05.2009 at about 9:45 A.M. autopsy on the dead body of deceased Vivek Kumar was conducted. During the course of examination, 12 injuries were found on his person. All the injuries were simple in nature. Injuries No.1 and 2 were by sharp edged weapon and injuries No.3 and 4 were of blunt weapon. This witness further deposed that on 17.05.2009 at about 9:45 A.M. autopsy on the dead body of deceased Vivek Kumar was conducted. During the course of examination, 12 injuries were found on his person. This witness deposed that the cause of his death was shock as a result of grievous injuries to bladder, which injury was sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature. 11. Laxman Lal (PW3) deposed that on 31.05.2009 he was posted as A.S.I. Police Station Nayapura, Kota. On the basis of information received under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, he prepared the site plan (Ex.P5) of the place of occurrence. This witness stated that he prepared 'phard' of Bajaj Discover Motorcycle bearing No.RJ-20-SD-5833 and at the time of preparing 'phard' he summoned two independents witnesses but no independent witness come forward to depose due to fear of the accused, both of them being history sheetor of Police Station Gumanpura. 12. Ashok Kumar (PW13) deposed that on 31.05.2009 he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Nayapura. On the basis of information given by accused Sheru Kashyap, recovery of motor-cycle RJ-20- SD-5833 was made which is Ex.P7, on the basis of information given by accused Santosh Koli, recovery of wore wore shirt was made, which is Ex.P10 and on the basis of information given by accused Anil Mehra, recovery of knife was made which is Ex.P42. 13. Shivcharan (PW16) deposed that on 25.05.2009 he was posted as Judicial Magistrate No.3, Kota (South). On that an application was submitted by the SHO Police Station Nayapura, Kota for identification of accused Anil & Sheru @ Sheru Kashyap. On 28.05.2009 SHO Police Station Nayapura, Kota submitted an application before him for identification of accused Santosh Koli. This witness further deposed that during the course of test identification parade, complainant Animesh identified both the accused appellants, Anil and Santosh Koli. 14. Ramkalyan (PW18) deposed that on 15.5.2009 he was posted as SHO Police Station Nayapura, Kota. This witness deposed that on the basis of information given by accused Santosh on 5.06.2009 under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, he recovered patta of belt (Ex.P13). The statement of this witness is corroborated by Laxman (PW3). 14. Ramkalyan (PW18) deposed that on 15.5.2009 he was posted as SHO Police Station Nayapura, Kota. This witness deposed that on the basis of information given by accused Santosh on 5.06.2009 under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, he recovered patta of belt (Ex.P13). The statement of this witness is corroborated by Laxman (PW3). This witness further deposed he recovered one blood stained knife at the instance of accused Anil. 15. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and carefully scanned the material on record, exhibits and the deposition of witnesses. 16. From the perusal of statement of Animesh Shah (PW4) it is clear that the accused appellants were involved in commission of the crime which is clear from the test identification parade conducted before the Magistrate in which this witness has identified accused Anil, Sheru and Santosh. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Motilal Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 647 in para Nos. 11,12 and 13 has held ad-infra:- "11. The evidence as to the identity of a person is admissible under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Ravi Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, this Court has opined in paragraph 35 as follows: (SCC p.305) "35.... The court identification itself is a good identification in the eye of the law. It is not always necessary that it must be preceded by the test identification parade. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In one case, it may not even be necessary to hold the test identification parade while in the other, it may be essential to do so. Thus, no straitjacket formula can be stated in this regard." 12. In the case of R. Shaji vs. State of Kerala, regarding the evidential value of the test identification parade, this Court has stated in paragraph 58 as under: (SCC p.287) "58.... The identification parade is conducted by the police. The actual evidence regarding identification is that which is given by the witness in court. A test identification parade cannot be claimed by an accused as a matter of right. Mere identification of an accused in a test identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification of the accused in court....." 13. The actual evidence regarding identification is that which is given by the witness in court. A test identification parade cannot be claimed by an accused as a matter of right. Mere identification of an accused in a test identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification of the accused in court....." 13. In Ashok Debbarma alias Achak Debbarma vs. State of Tripura, this Court has made following observations in para 20 which are reproduced below: (SCC pp.758-59)" "20..... The primary object of the test identification parade is to enable the witnesses to identify the persons involved in the commission of offence(s) if the offenders are not personally known to the witnesses. The whole object behind the test identification parade is really to find whether or not the suspect is the real offender. In Kanta Prasad vs. Delhi Admn.[9], this Court stated that the failure to hold the test identification parade does not make the evidence of identification at the trial inadmissible....." 18. Moreover, in reply to the notice dated 31.05.2009 issued under section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act co-accused Sheru Kashyap, admitted that he is registered owner of Bajaj Discover Motorcycle bearing number RJ-20-SD-5833. On 15.05.2009 at 11:00 P.M. he was driving the motor-cycle and behind him Santosh Koli and Anil Mehra were sitting on the motorcycle. Thus, presence of accused Anil at the time of occurrence is fully established. 19. Ashok Kumar (PW13) has proved the recovery of blood stained knife Ex.P42 from the possession of accused Anil. 20. Prosecution case is based on evidence of injured witness Animesh Shah (PW4) who consistently supported prosecution case as disclosed in FIR (Ex.P15) lodged by him. This witness deposed that he had accompanied the deceased as they were going to take meals, when the accused persons surrounded them and while trying to save Vivek he received knife injury on back. The evidence of this witness is corroborated by the medical evidence produced on record. 21. The postmortem report (Ex.P2) discloses the following injuries on the person of deceased:- "1. Stitched wound (4x1) cm. (R) advised for Rx. (2) Stitched wound, left side on left leg, just ahead on ankle (for treatment) 3. Stab wound 2 1 /2 cm.x1 cm.x? Depth (L) chest, scaling to mid line x >D 4. Stab wound (3 x /) cm. x ? depth (L) at the depth of stomach. 5. Stitched wound (4x1) cm. (R) advised for Rx. (2) Stitched wound, left side on left leg, just ahead on ankle (for treatment) 3. Stab wound 2 1 /2 cm.x1 cm.x? Depth (L) chest, scaling to mid line x >D 4. Stab wound (3 x /) cm. x ? depth (L) at the depth of stomach. 5. Stab wound 3 x / cm. x ? depth (L) lower abdomen, right side of stomach 6. Stab wound 3 x / cm. x > m. (r) hypahortrma 7. Stab wound 3/ cm. x 1/ cm. (B) arm near elbow 8. Stab wound 3/ x 1/ cm. (L) forearm near (9) Incised wound 3 x 2 cm. x > depth (L) hand (10) Incised wound 3/ cm. x 1/ cm. hand". 22. The postmortem report (Ex.P2) as well as injury report (Ex.P1) of the deceased clearly show that the deceased had received injuries by sharp edged weapon. Thus, the medical evidence does corroborate the testimony of Animesh Shah (PW4). Laxman Lal (PW3) posted as ASI, Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota, deposed that at the time of preparing 'phard', he summoned two independent witnesses but no independent witness came forward due to fear of both of accused being history sheeter of Police Station Gumanpura, Kota. 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the matter of Sher Singh vs. Haryana (AIR 2011) SC 373 , observed that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased shows the intention of the accused. In the case in hand, postmortem report (Ex.P2) shows that there were 10 wounds on the person of the deceased with knife. 24. In view of the analysis of evidence made above, we find that the prosecution has proved that the accused appellants have committed the offences of which they have been convicted by the learned trial court. 25. In the result, both the criminal appeals filed by the accused appellants are bereft of merit and accordingly stand dismissed. The Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.02.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.6, Kota (Raj.) in Sessions C.I.S. No. 72/2013 is confirmed.