JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur vide judgment dated 29.05.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.44/2014:- Name of the accused appellant Offence for which convicted Sentences awarded 1. Bablu @ Gopal @ Vijay Kharol 2. Kishan 3. Roop Lal @ Rupesh Bharti Section 447 IPC Three months simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment Section 302/34 IPC Life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment Section 4/25 Arms Act Two years simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one months simple imprisonment Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred these two appeals under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. Prakashnath (P.W.1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO, Police Station Amba Mata, at the MBGH, Udaipur on 09.05.2008 at 01.30 p.m alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 11.30 a.m., his younger brother Khoobinath, resident of Madar, had gone to the hotel of Bhagwati Lal situated at the Thoor Bus Stand. The informant as well as Karannath followed him on a motorcycle and reached the hotel. At that time, Omprakash son of Shobha Lal Bhoi, resident of 35, Kahar Bhoiwada and Ghanshyam son of Mohan Lal, resident of 36 Kahar Bhoiwada, were also standing nearby. In the presence of all these people, three persons, namely, Babloo @ Gopal, Roop Lal Bharti and Kishan Khatik, came there on a motorcycle. These three persons were having old enmity with Khoobinath and were also indulged in demanding subscription money from him. They launched an assault upon Khoobinath by knives, which each of them was carrying. Firstly, Babloo aimed a blow at the abdomen of Khoobinath, who bent down and swayed, owing to which, the blow landed on the back of his left thigh. Kishan Khatik aimed a second blow at the head of his brother, who raised his right hand, due to which, the blow landed on his right thumb. Firstly, Babloo aimed a blow at the abdomen of Khoobinath, who bent down and swayed, owing to which, the blow landed on the back of his left thigh. Kishan Khatik aimed a second blow at the head of his brother, who raised his right hand, due to which, the blow landed on his right thumb. Roop Lal also tried to inflict a knife blow on the chest of Khoobinath, who put his right hand up and avoided the blow, which landed on his little finger. Khoobinath fell down injured. The informant and his companions rushed towards him, upon which the assailants ran away. His brother was being taken to the hospital, but he passed away en route. 3. On the basis of the report aforesaid, a formal FIR No.213/2008 (Ex.P/42) was registered at the Police Station Amba Mata for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Investigation was taken up by Bhagwat Singh (P.W.9), SHO, Police Station Amba Mata, District Udaipur, who undertook the requisite steps of investigation viz., preparation of site inspection plan, Panchnama Lash, seizure memo of the blood etc. from the spot and got conducted photography of the place of incident. The trousers and shoes of the deceased lying at the place of incident were also seized. The dead body of Khoobinath was got subjected to postmortem at the MBGH, Udaipur at the hands of the medical jurist Dr.Anupam Johari (P.W.3), who issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/11), as per which, the following injuries were noticed on the body of Khoobinath : 1. Incised wound on the right thumb admeasuring 2 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. bone deep with fresh clotted blood. The bone of the thumb was fractured; 2. Incised wound on the little finger ad measuring 1.5 c.m.X 0.5 c.m.; 3. Lacerated wound at the back side of the left knee measuring 2 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. muscle deep with fresh clotted blood; 4. Incised wound posterior to the left thigh in the middle at about 19 c.m. above the knee and 60 c.m. below the back. Dimension of the wound was 4 c.m. X 2 c.m. X 10 c.m. deep and was placed horizontally. An area of 10 c.m.X 10 c.m. was damaged underneath the wound. The femoral artery, which was 2 c.m. thick was severed because of the injury. The injuries No.1, and 4 were opined to be grievous in nature. Dimension of the wound was 4 c.m. X 2 c.m. X 10 c.m. deep and was placed horizontally. An area of 10 c.m.X 10 c.m. was damaged underneath the wound. The femoral artery, which was 2 c.m. thick was severed because of the injury. The injuries No.1, and 4 were opined to be grievous in nature. The injury No.4 was opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injuries No.1, 2 and 4 were opined as having been caused by sharp weapons. The accused were arrested. They allegedly provided informations to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in furtherance whereof, the knives used in the assault were recovered. Upon concluding the investigation, the Investigating officer, proceeded to file a charge sheet against the accused-appellants for the offences under Section 324, 447, 302/34 IPC and 4/25 of the Arms Act. 4. As the offence under Section 302 IPC was Sessions triable, the case was committed and transferred for trial to the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3 Udaipur, who framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 447, 302/34 IPC and 4/25 of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 43 documents to prove its case. 5. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. They alleged that the deceased was the brother of a police officer, who had manipulated the entire case against the accused-appellants. Two witnesses were examined in defence. 6. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and after evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence, this appeal. 7. Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel representing the accused appellant Roop Lal @ Rupesh Bharti, and Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi, learned counsel representing the accused appellants Bablu @ Gopal @ Vijay Kharol and Kishan, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The first informant Prakashnath (P.W.1) and Karannath (P.W.2) were not even present at the spot. Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel representing the accused appellant Roop Lal @ Rupesh Bharti, and Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi, learned counsel representing the accused appellants Bablu @ Gopal @ Vijay Kharol and Kishan, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The first informant Prakashnath (P.W.1) and Karannath (P.W.2) were not even present at the spot. They have been concocted as eye-witnesses of the incident at the instance of their brother Ashoknath, who was posted as an ASI at Udaipur. They contended that the evidence of the witnesses Prakashchandra Teli (P.W.4) and Bhagwati Lal (P.W.5), being the owners of the hotel, where the incident took place, completely demolishes the testimony of the socalled eye-witnesses Prakashnath (P.W.1), Karannath (P.W.2), Omprakash (P.W.7) and Ghanshyam (P.W.8). They submitted that Prakashchandra and Bhagwatilal, who were neither declared hostile nor were they confronted with their previous police statements, which were recorded on the very day of the incident, categorically stated in their evidence that neither Prakashnath nor any other person from the family of the deceased was present at the spot when the incident happened and that Prakashnath was called on phone and was informed of the incident. They further submitted that the genesis of the occurrence is unknown. In arguendo, they submitted that even if the evidence of Omprakash (P.W.7) and Ghanshyam (P.W.8) is believed for the sake of it, apparently, the appellants did not repeat the blows inflicted to the deceased Khoobinath and only the injury at the back of the leg of the deceased fortuitously proved fatal because the femoral artery got cut. Thus, as per the learned counsel, the offence, if any attributable to the accused, would not travel beyond Section 326 IPC. Mr. Shah and Mr. Bishnoi further submitted that the recoveries of the knives made at the instance of the accused have not been proved by proper evidence because while deposing on oath, the Investigating Officer Bhagwat Singh Hingad (P.W.9) did not give proper evidence of the informations, which he allegedly recorded at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and in furtherance whereof, the recoveries were allegedly made. On these grounds, learned counsel representing the accused appellants implored the court to accept the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellants of all the charges or to suitably tone down the offence. 8. On these grounds, learned counsel representing the accused appellants implored the court to accept the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellants of all the charges or to suitably tone down the offence. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case has been proved beyond all manner of doubt by the evidence of Prakashnath (P.W.1), who lodged the prompt FIR (Ex.P/42), the eye-witnesses Karan Nath (P.W.2), Omprakash (P.W.7) and Ghanshyam (P.W.8). Their evidence is beyond reproach. He further urged that the knives recovered at the instance of the accused and the clothes of the victim were forwarded to the FSL, from where an analysis report (Ex.P/42) was received indicating that all these articles bore 'AB' group blood. Thus, as per the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has established and proved the charges against the appellants beyond all manner of doubt and the impugned judgment deserves to be affirmed while dismissing the appeals. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through and reappreciated the evidence available on record. 10. In substratum, the prosecution case hinges around the testimony of the witnesses Prakashnath (P.W.1), brother of the deceased, Karannath (P.W.2), Dr. Anupam Johari (P.W.3), Prakashchandra (P.W.4), Bhagwati Lal (P.W.5), Omprakash (P.W.7), Ghanshyam (P.W.8) and Bhagwat Singh Hingad (P.W.9). 11. On going through the evidence of Prakashnath and Karannath, it is apparent that they claimed that Khoobinath was standing at the hotel of Bhagwati Lal. Omprakash and Ghanshyam were also standing outside the hotel. The accused came there on a Hero Honda motorcycle. They immediately caught hold of Khoobinath. They were allegedly having old enmity on account of the deceased not acceding to their demand of Hafta Vasooli. All three accused took out knives. The first blow was aimed by the accused Bablu @ Gopal at the abdomen of the deceased, which he avoided by turning around and as a result, the blow landed on the left thigh. Kishan aimed the second blow on the head of Khoobinath, which he saved by putting his right hand up, due to which, his right thumb was cut. The third blow was aimed by Roop Lal on the chest of the deceased, which he parried by putting his right hand up, due to which, his little finger got cut. The accused then escaped on their motorcycle. The third blow was aimed by Roop Lal on the chest of the deceased, which he parried by putting his right hand up, due to which, his little finger got cut. The accused then escaped on their motorcycle. The witnesses claimed to have seen severe bleeding from the wound located on the thigh of Khoobinath. They claimed to have opened his shoes and pant and compressed the wound by a cloth. As per them, Khoobinath was boarded on to a bus for taking him to hospital, but he expired on the way. 12. In cross-examination, witness Prakashnath admitted that no complaint was ever made regarding the alleged attempt of the accused to extort money from the deceased, even though the brother of Khoobinath and Prakashnath, namely, Ashoknath, was a police officer. Thus, the alleged theory of enmity attributed by Prakashnath to the accused, i.e. their quest for 'Hafta Vasooli' from the deceased, is not worthy of credence. While Prakashnath and Karannath alleged that the wound on the leg was ligated by a big cloth, the witnesses Omprakash (P.W.7) and Ghanshyam (P.W.8) alleged that the trousers worn by the deceased were used to tie the wound. Thus, there is a significant discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses in this regard as well. 13. The witnesses Prakashchandra (P.W.4) and Bhagwati Lal (P.W.5), being the owners of the hotel where the deceased was assaulted, clearly stated in their evidence that no family member of the deceased was present when the assault took place. Bhagwati Lal even stated that Prakashnath was summoned to the spot by making a call to him. Even Omprakash (P.W.7) admitted in his cross-examination that Bhagwati Lal and Prakashchandra were not present at the hotel at the time of incident. Prakash Nath was called at the place of incident by the people present there. 14. Ghanshyam P.W.8 also admitted in his cross examination that Bhagwati Lal and Prakash Nath came to the place of incident at a later point of time. 15. Thus, from the significant facts as elicited from the evidence of the independent witnesses Prakash Chandra (P.W.4), Bhagwati Lal (P.W.5), Omprakash (P.W.7) and Ghanshyam (P.W.8), we are duly satisfied that Prakash Nath (P.W.1) and Karan Nath (P.W.2) could not have been present at the spot and have been falsely portrayed to be the eye-witnesses of the incident. 15. Thus, from the significant facts as elicited from the evidence of the independent witnesses Prakash Chandra (P.W.4), Bhagwati Lal (P.W.5), Omprakash (P.W.7) and Ghanshyam (P.W.8), we are duly satisfied that Prakash Nath (P.W.1) and Karan Nath (P.W.2) could not have been present at the spot and have been falsely portrayed to be the eye-witnesses of the incident. Both Prakash Chandra (P.W.4) and Bhagwati Lal (P.W.5), being the owners of the hotel, did not state that the incident took place in their viewing. Rather, Prakashchandra did not support the prosecution story as a against the accused appellants and clearly stated in his cross-examination that he saw 3 persons coming out of the hotel but they were not Bablu, Kishan and Roop Bharti. Thus, the evidence of Prakashchandra and Bhagwati Lal is relevant to the extent of drawing an inference that the incident took place inside their hotel. Neither did these witnesses identify the assailants nor did they state anything about the manner in which the incident took place. Their testimony also destroys the claim of Prakashnath and Karannath that they were present at the spot at the time of the incident. 16. On going through the evidence of the Investigating Officer Bhagwat Singh (P.W.9) regarding the informations supplied by the accused and the recoveries of the blood-stained weapons, it is apparent that he gave absolutely cursory deposition in this regard. The relevant part of the testimony (12 of 17) [CRLA-546/2015] of the Investigating Officer regarding the informations provided by the accused and the recoveries made in furtherance thereof is quoted hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference :- This court in the case of Daau Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan,2019 3 RLW 1843 (Raj.)] has affirmatively held that for an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to be admitted in evidence, the police officer concerned must depose the contents thereof verbatim during his sworn testimony. A casual statement that the accused gave the information, which was being marked as an exhibit, would not amount to a proper legal proof of the information. Apparently, the Investigating Officer would have recorded the informations during interrogation of the accused and thus, he would be the prime witness to prove the same. He would, thus, be required to narrate verbatim or at least in substance, the contents thereof, only whereafter, such informations could be treated as having been proved as per law. Apparently, the Investigating Officer would have recorded the informations during interrogation of the accused and thus, he would be the prime witness to prove the same. He would, thus, be required to narrate verbatim or at least in substance, the contents thereof, only whereafter, such informations could be treated as having been proved as per law. If the Investigating Officer fails during his testimony to elaborate the details of the information given to him by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a formal marking of the memorandum as an exhibit would not fulfill the requirement of law and the information would have to be treated as not proved. As observed above, the Investigating Officer made a simple formality of marking exhibits on the informations under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in his evidence without deposing the words spoken to him by the accused and thus, these informations and the recoveries made in furtherance thereof are rendered inadmissible in evidence. 17. Thus, the only two witnesses, whose testimony can be considered relevant to establish the prosecution case, are Omprakash (P.W.7) and Ghanshyam (P.W.8). Though, the learned defence counsel tried to criticize the evidence of these witnesses claiming that their testimony should be discarded as their 161 Cr.P.C. statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer after a delay of five days from the incident, but we are not in the least persuaded by this submission. On going through the site inspection plan (Ex.P/5), it is clear that the names of these two persons are clearly mentioned therein as eye-witnesses of the incident and their position has been identified at point 'B', which is just outside the hotel of Bhagwati Lal Teli. The witnesses were cross examined on the aspect of delay in giving the statements to the police during investigation and they explained that initially they did not desire to be wrangled into the police case as they feared retribution, however later on, they mustered up the courage and deposed the truthful version of the incident to the Investigating Officer. On minutely going through the evidence of these witnesses, we are satisfied that their testimony is truthful and worthy of credence. They clearly admitted in their cross examination that the first informant and Karan Nath were not present at the spot when the assault took place. On minutely going through the evidence of these witnesses, we are satisfied that their testimony is truthful and worthy of credence. They clearly admitted in their cross examination that the first informant and Karan Nath were not present at the spot when the assault took place. Thus, the fact that the witnesses are speaking truth is fortified from this admission made by them which is otherwise adverse to the prosecution story. On going through the testimony of these witnesses, it is clear that they have attributed the three knife injuries caused to the deceased Khoobi Nath to the appellants herein in the manner stated above. The witness Omprakash also alleged that they heard the people talking and came to know that the accused and the deceased were having some previous property dispute. Manifestly, thus, the incident was perpetrated because of some monetary dispute about which clear evidence was not led by the prosecution. 18. Be that as it may. The accused came to the place of incident as a unit on the Honda motorcycle. They were having knives with them. They assaulted the deceased and inflicted one injury each to him. From the evidence of Omprakash (P.W.7) and Ghanshayam (P.W.8), it is clear that the fatal injury caused on the thigh of Khoobinath was specifically attributed by both the witnesses to the accused Bablu. The witness stated that Bablu aimed the knife on the abdomen of Khoobinath, who swayed to avoid the blow, which landed on his left thigh. Thus, the injury inflicted to Khoobinath by Bablu fortuitously landed on his thigh and severed the femoral artery causing excessive bleeding, which led to the death of Khoobi Nath. The injury definitely was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death because it is a foregone conclusion that severance of the femoral artery would definitely lead to severe bleeding which cannot be checked and chances of survival would be negligible. However, what remains to be seen is whether the accused Bablu while landing the blow on the thigh of the deceased was aware of the fact that the injury so inflicted would prove fatal. We feel that attributing such knowledge or intention to the accused would not be justified. However, what remains to be seen is whether the accused Bablu while landing the blow on the thigh of the deceased was aware of the fact that the injury so inflicted would prove fatal. We feel that attributing such knowledge or intention to the accused would not be justified. However, since as per the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the blow was aimed on the abdomen of the deceased, we can infer that the accused were definitely having knowledge coupled with common intention that giving such blows to the deceased by knives could lead to his death. We, thus, feel that in the facts and circumstances noted above, the case of the accused falls within Part-I of Section 304 IPC. 19. As an upshot of the above discussion, the appeals deserve to be and are hereby allowed in part. The impugned judgment dated 29.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.44/2014 is hereby modified. The conviction of the accused-appellants recorded by the trial court by the impugned judgment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC is altered to that under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC. Each appellant is sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each for the said offence. In default in payment of fine, each appellant shall further undergo 1 year's rigorous imprisonment. The conviction of the appellants for the remaining offences as recorded by the trial court and the sentences awarded to them for these counts are maintained. Appellants Bablu @ Gopal @ Vijay Kharol and Kishan are in jail. Appellant Roop Lal @ Rupesh Bharti is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall surrender before the trial court and shall be sent to the concerned Central Jail for serving out the remainder of the sentences awarded. The fine upon being realized shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Khoobinath by way of compensation under Section 357 CrPC. 20. The matter is referred to the District Legal Services Authority, Udaipur for grant of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme. 21. The appeals are partly allowed in these terms.