JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence as ordered by the Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 24.08.2015 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). 2. Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the report lodged by the complainant Shambhuram Exhibit P-6. Complainant had reported that on 11.06.2012 at about 7.30 p.m., he received information on his mobile-phone from Rajendra Meena and Jai Prakash Meena that Dharmraj had been inflicted knife blows by Chandra Shekhar Meena and his two companions. As a result, Dharmraj was seriously injured. On the basis of the said information, complainant reached Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur and came to know that Dharmraj had died while under treatment. Thereafter, he obtained information about the incident from Jai Prakash Meena and came to know that he was going towards Deshwal Coaching Centre near Bhagirath Colony House No. S-12, and he saw that lot of persons had gathered there. When he went closer, he saw that Dharmraj was lying on the road and his clothes were soaked in blood and he told him that he should save him. At the same time, police reached the spot. Rajendra and Jai Prakash Meena took Dharmraj to Sawai Man Singh Hospital in the police van. Dharmraj disclosed to the police officials as well as Rajendra and Jai Prakash that he had been inflicted knife injuries by Chandra Shekhar and his two other friends. Thereafter, Dharmraj became unconscious. 3. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, formal FIR No. 148 dated 12.06.2012 was registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Jaipur City (South) under Section 302/34 IPC. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant and his co-accused Krishnavatar Meena. 5. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 120-B, 201 and 302 IPC, whereas, against accused Krishnavatar Meena, charges were framed under Section 120-B, 302/109, 212 and 201 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty six witnesses during trial. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. No recovery of knife had been effected from him. Accused examined two witnesses in their defence. 7. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty six witnesses during trial. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. No recovery of knife had been effected from him. Accused examined two witnesses in their defence. 7. Trial Court vide impugned judgment/order dated 24.08.2015, ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and accused Krishnavatar Meena was acquitted of the charges framed against him. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. No reliance could be placed on the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution before whom deceased had allegedly suffered oral dying declaration. The alleged eyewitnesses had not supported the prosecution case, during trial. Lot of padding had been done by the investigating agency for the success of its case. There was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. No test identification parade was got conducted to establish the identity of the appellant in the crime. As per the medical evidence, cause of death of the deceased was a result of injury no.2, which has been caused by blunt weapon, whereas, knife has been effected from the accused. 9. Learned state counsel has opposed the appeal. 10. Present case relates to murder of Dharmraj. 11. PW-16 Dr. Deepali Pathak deposed that on 12.06.2012, she had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Dharmraj. She proved the postmortem report Exhibit P-16. The cause of death of the deceased was hemorrhagic shock brought about as a result of antemortem injury No.2 inflicted by blunt weapon & sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 12. A perusal of Exhibit P-16 reveals that the deceased had suffered following injuries:- "(1) Stab Incised wound 3cm x 1 cm x? Deep with omentum prolapsing out of wound with red clotted blood at margins present vertically on right side front of abdomen 3cm lateral to mid lung 4 cm obliquely above umbilicus and 22 cm obliquely medically below the right nipple with clean cut regular margins and tailing at upperedge and regular loweredge. On further dissection the wound communicates through and through correspondingly to anterior abdominal wall upto the peritoneums with a corresponding wound in the peritoneal layer on dissection. On further dissection the wound communicates through and through correspondingly to anterior abdominal wall upto the peritoneums with a corresponding wound in the peritoneal layer on dissection. There is about some of the partially blood in the abdominal cavity. On further dissection all the abdominal visceras are pale and intact. (2) The abdomen is distended or dissection of abdomen in layers on both sides the anterior abdominal wall on left side of abdomen in left periumbilical region there is subcutaneous haematoma. Rectus abdominis and accompanying tissue haematoma at places on left side on further dissection the peritoneum contains about some partially clotted blood on further dissection and examination there are multiple contusions of size varying form 1cm x 1cm x 1/2cm to 1/2cm x 1/2 cm x 0.2cm dark red in colour present over parts of mesentery omentum with associated muscle haematomas of bilateral psoas muscles with pericapsulitis haematoma of with kidneys. On further examination there is antemortem haematoma around mesocolon in entire extent. On dissection and further examination, there is antemorten haematoma in the peritoneal folds on both sides accompanying the urinary bladder on further dissection there is antemortem retroperitoneal haematoma on both sides and in para spinal recesses. On collection, retrieval and assessing the haematoma from all possible site approximately measures about 1800 cc of partially clotted collection of blood. (3) stab incised wound of size 2cm x 0.8cm x 1.5cm muscle deep with red clotted blood on left thigh upper 1/3rd on lateral aspect in horizontal axis with clear cut margins. (4) Stab incised wound of size 1cm x 0.5cm x muscle(1cm) deep with red clotted blood on left thigh laterally with clean cut regular margins 1cm away from injury no.3. (5) stab incised wound 0.5cm x 0.3cm x muscle deep with red clotted blood on left thigh(1cm) laterally in horizontal axis below injury no.4 with a gap of 0.7cm in both. (6) stitched wound 31/2 cm long with two stitches in sited on right thigh upper 1/4th with central line patient in site done surgically & therapeutically for intravenous central line with red clotted blood above injuries are antemortem in nature and fresh in duration prior to death. Injury no.6 is done surgically while management of patient. Injury no.2 is caused by blunt weapon. Injury No.1,3,4 & 5 are inflicted by sharp weapon. A). Following sample preserved for blood grouping and cross matching. i). Injury no.6 is done surgically while management of patient. Injury no.2 is caused by blunt weapon. Injury No.1,3,4 & 5 are inflicted by sharp weapon. A). Following sample preserved for blood grouping and cross matching. i). one sealed glass bottle containing dried gauze piece soaked in blood of deceased for blood grouping and cross matching. Opinion:- Regarding cause of death is hemorrhagic shock brought about as a result of antemortem injury No.2 (mentioned on page 3) inflicted by blunt weapon & sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature." 13. Complainant while appearing in the witness-box as PW8 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. Eye-witness PW-3 Kamla has not supported the prosecution case during trial. PW-10 Harshita has also not deposed anything against the appellant. 14. Prosecution case mainly rests on the statements of PW2 Jai Prakash Meena, PW-4 Sandeep Singh, PW-5 Deepak Bhargav, PW-6 Deepak Sharma and PW-7 Rajendra Meena. 15. PW-2 Jai Prakash Meena has deposed that on 11.06.2012 at about 7.00 p.m., he was going towards Deshwal Coaching Centre. Dharmraj was lying in an injured condition on the road near the coaching centre. Lot of persons had gathered at the spot. When he saw that the injured was his friend, he immediately made a phone-call to Rajendra Meena and had called him to the spot. When Rajendra Meena reached the spot, he inquired from Dharmraj as to who had inflicted injuries to him. Dharmraj said that Chandra Shekhar and two other persons had inflicted knife blows to him. He could not disclose the names of other assailants. After sometime, police vehicle came to the spot and took the injured to Sawai Man Singh Hospital. The incident had occurred on account of some dispute relating to a girl. 16. PW-7 Rajendra Meena has corroborated the statement of PW-2. 17. PW-4 Sandeep Singh deposed that he was a resident of Arjun Nagar. About 1/11/4 year back, one person was lying in an injured condition near his house. His sister was standing outside and told him that one person had suffered epilepsy attack. He reached the spot and was told by Gundiya that somebody had inflicted knife blows to the said person. Then, he tied a cloth around the abdomen of the said person and inquired from him as to who had caused injuries to him. His sister was standing outside and told him that one person had suffered epilepsy attack. He reached the spot and was told by Gundiya that somebody had inflicted knife blows to the said person. Then, he tied a cloth around the abdomen of the said person and inquired from him as to who had caused injuries to him. Injured told him that he has been inflicted injuries by Shekhar. Two persons were standing there who had identified the injured. Police reached the spot and took the injured with them. 18. PW-5 Deepak Bhargav has deposed that about a year back he had returned home from his office. On hearing alarm, he came out of his house and saw that one person was lying in an injured condition and lot of persons had gathered around him. He saw that blood was oozing from the abdomen of the injured. He made a phone-call at No.108 for calling ambulance. In the meantime, PCR (Police Control Room) van came to the spot. Injured had told him that he had been inflicted knife blows by Shekhar. He also disclosed the name of the Shekhar to two others who were present at the spot. 19. PW-6 Deepak Sharma deposed that he was on duty with PCR (Police Control Room) van Chetak 26 on 11.06.2012. At about 6.00 p.m., he received a phone-call from the control room that one person had suffered knife injuries in Bhagirath Nagar. They reached Bhagirath Nagar in about 5/6 minutes and saw that one boy was lying in an injured condition. They took the injured to the Sawai Man Singh Hospital. Rajendra and Jai Prakash had also accompanied them to the hospital. On the way, injured had disclosed his name as Dharmraj Meena and on enquiry he told him that he had been inflicted injuries by Shekhar Meena with a knife. 20. Since, in the present case, eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, during trial, prosecution case rests on testimony of PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7. All the said witnesses have deposed that they had been disclosed by the deceased that he had been inflicted injuries by the appellant. PW-6 is a police official and was doing his duty. He had no ill-will or enmity against the appellant to have falsely involved him in this case. Statement of PW-6 is duly corroborated by PW-2 Jai Prakash and PW-7 Rajendra. PW-6 is a police official and was doing his duty. He had no ill-will or enmity against the appellant to have falsely involved him in this case. Statement of PW-6 is duly corroborated by PW-2 Jai Prakash and PW-7 Rajendra. So far as PW-4 Sandeep Singh and PW-5 Deepak Bhargav are concerned, they were not known to the injured and were residing near the place of incident. The said witnesses had also no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in this case as they had no enmity or ill-will against him. Hence, the statements of PW-2, PW-4 to PW-7 inspire confidence. 21. The version of PW-2, PW-4 to PW-7 is corroborated by medical evidence. Deceased had suffered four stab wounds. Although, as per the postmortem examination report, the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock brought about as a result of antemortem injury no.2 inflicted by blunt weapon, but the said fact in itself fails to advance the case of the appellant because so far as the appellant is concerned, his involvement in the crime duly stands established from the statements of PW-2, PW-4 to PW-7. On the basis of disclosure statement suffered by the appellant, blood stained knife was recovered at his instance. 22. There is no force in argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Occurrence had taken place at 6.00 p.m. and FIR was lodged at 9.00 p.m. Injured was immediately removed to the hospital for treatment and he succumbed to his injuries at 11.35 a.m. on 12.06.2012. Thus, FIR was lodged while the injured was under treatment. Condition of the injured was serious as is evident from the nature of injuries suffered by him. Hence, there was no delay in lodging the FIR. Moreover, there is nothing on record to reach the conclusion that the said delay had been used for falsely involving the appellant in this case. 23. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution had been successful in establishing its case against the appellant and learned Trial Court has rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. 24. Hence, no ground for interference by this court is made out. 25. Dismissed.