JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 19.12.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro, in Sessions Case No.24/2012: Offence Under Section Sentences Fine Fine Default sentence 302 IPC Life Imprisonment which shall extend to the remainder of his life. Rs.50,000/ 1 Year's R.I. 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:- 4. The appellant was serving life imprisonment in another case, upon having been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur and was lodged at the Central Jail, Jodhpur on the day of the incident i.e. 18.09.2010. At about 6 pm., the routine process of locking up the convicts in the barracks was underway and was being supervised by Shri Ashok Upadhyay, Acting Superintendent, Central Jail Jodhpur alongwith Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt, Jailor; Omprakash, Assistant Jailor; Jora Ram, Jail Guard; Gordhan Lal Meena, Acting Chief Guard; and other on duty guards. Shri Ashok Upadhyay and Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt were sitting on chairs laid beside the fountain near the jail kitchen. The time was around 06.15 pm. The prisoners of Barrack Nos.2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 had been sent back to their respective cells. The prisoners of Barrack No.8A were being counted and were being sent inside their barrack. It is alleged that at that time, suddenly, the appellant herein, who was assigned the Barrack No.9, came shouting and running from the Barrack No.4 towards the Jailor Bharat Bhushan Bhatt while he was sitting near the fountain and he stabbed him on the neck by a knife from behind. Blood started erupting from Bharat Bhushan Bhatt's neck and drenched his clothes. On seeing the ghastly assault, Ashok Upadhyay raised a hue and cry on which, the Assistant Jailor Shri Omprakash and the Jail Guards Joraram, Gordhan Lal, Bhagwana Ram and Yogesh Kumar came rushing. The assailant prisoner, Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura, ran away towards the Barrack No.9. The jail staff including Shri Ashok Upadhyay, picked up and brought Bharat Bhushan Bhatt towards the main gate of the Jail and sent him to the Emergency Unit of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur in the jail ambulance. Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt expired while undergoing treatment. The assailant prisoner, Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura, ran away towards the Barrack No.9. The jail staff including Shri Ashok Upadhyay, picked up and brought Bharat Bhushan Bhatt towards the main gate of the Jail and sent him to the Emergency Unit of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur in the jail ambulance. Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt expired while undergoing treatment. The convict Narendra Singh had been warned by Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt on numerous occasions for not doing the assigned work and for not going to the jail industry and thus, he was bearing an illwill towards Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt. He often used to say that he was a Jat of U.P. and he could not be made to do jail duty as it was demeaning to him. Owing to this, squabbles had taken place between Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt and Narendra Singh on a number of occasions. 5. Shri Ashok Upadhyay (PW-1) submitted a typed report (Ex.P/1) with these allegations at 08.30 pm. to the SHO, Police Station Ratanada who had arrived at the place of incident (Central Jail, Jodhpur). On the basis of this report, an FIR No.222/2010 (Ex.P/71) came to be registered against the appellant herein at the Police Station Ratanada for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and investigation was commenced. 6. Before lodging of this formal report, the SHO Shri Tara Chand (PW-30) had already received a telephonic message regarding the untoward incident from the Central Jail, Jodhpur and he immediately rushed to the Emergency Ward of the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur where, Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt had been admitted for treatment. The SHO then proceeded to the Jail where, he made the requisite entry and entered the premises. Thereafter, he telephonically informed his superior officers about the serious incident. The photographer of District MOB Branch was summoned to the prison for taking photographs. After the SHO had reached the jail, the senior police officers viz. Dy. S.P., and S.P. also arrived there. Upon receiving the report from Shri Ashok Upadhyay, the SHO Shri Tara Chand started formal investigation. As the information regarding death of Bharat Bhushan Bhatt was received from the hospital, the SHO went there to ensure that the dead body was securely placed in the mortuary and after that, he returned to the Central Jail for continuing investigation. Upon receiving the report from Shri Ashok Upadhyay, the SHO Shri Tara Chand started formal investigation. As the information regarding death of Bharat Bhushan Bhatt was received from the hospital, the SHO went there to ensure that the dead body was securely placed in the mortuary and after that, he returned to the Central Jail for continuing investigation. The dead body of Shri Bharat Bhushan was got subjected to postmortem by a Medical Board constituted at the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur which issued the Postmortem Report (Ex.P/68). The blood stained clothes worn by the deceased were taken into possession, seized and sealed vide seizure memo (Ex.P/38). The dead body was handed over to the family of the deceased for cremation. The FSL team was summoned and the spot was inspected in its presence. The I.O. proceeded to prepare the following documents at the spot: (i) Site Plan - (Ex.P/4), (ii) Seizure memo of Blood Stained soil - (Ex.P/5), and (iii) Seizure memo of Control Soil - (Ex.P/6). 7. After committing the offence, the accused ran away towards the gate of the jail where, he was stopped by Almudeen Qureshi (PW-10) who was posted as Mukhya Prahari on the date of the incident. As the accused was seen in an abnormal condition with his hands and clothes stained in blood, the witness inquired from him as to why, he was raising a hue and cry. The Assistant Jailor Omprakash came around and on his instruction, the convict appellant was taken and locked up in the Cell No.9A. 8. Since the accused was serving sentence under the judgment of a Court, his custody was sought through a production warrant procured from the CJM, Jodhpur and he was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/39) on 19.09.2010 at 01.30 pm. When the accused was arrested, his Payjama and Kurta which were stained with blood were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/40). The statements of various witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, as per the direction of the Superintendent of Police, the file was handed over to Shri Anant Kumar Dy. S.P. (PW-32) who took over the investigation of the case on 20.09.2010. He recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses. The accused Vikas @ Vikky, who too, was suspected of being a conspirator in this case, was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/41). Another accused named Rajan Verma was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/43). 9. S.P. (PW-32) who took over the investigation of the case on 20.09.2010. He recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses. The accused Vikas @ Vikky, who too, was suspected of being a conspirator in this case, was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/41). Another accused named Rajan Verma was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/43). 9. The accused Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura was interrogated and he gave an information to Shri Anant Kumar Dy. S.P. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding he having concealed the knife used to assault Shri Bhatt in a gutter line outside the Ward No.9A, Chhatri Chowk of the Central Jail which was recorded in memorandum (Ex.P/72). In furtherance of the said information, the accused took the I.O. and identified the gutter line. The iron cover of the gutter covering the jammer cables was removed. The accused took out a retractable iron knife from the gutter line which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/7). During the course of further search of the Jail premises, few mobile phones were recovered. The documents pertaining to the warnings given to the accused appellant for failing to perform the assigned jail duties, the jail entry register, etc. were collected by the I.O. Another accused named Santosh Beniwal was also apprehended vide arrest memo (Ex.P/42). The clothes of the deceased, the blood stained soil collected from the place of incident, the clothes of the accused and the weapon of offence (knife) were forwarded to the FSL for analysis from where, a report dated 24.12.2010 was received indicating presence of 'B' Group human blood on all these articles. Shri Anant Kumar, I.O. thereafter, concluded investigation and handed over the case file to the SHO, Police Station Ratanada for filing the result of investigation in the court. Accordingly, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and against the co-accused named Vikash @ Vikky, Rajan Verma and Santosh for the offence under Section 302/120B IPC, in the Court of the CJM, Jodhpur. As the offence under Section 302 IPC was Sessions triable, the case was committed for trial to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District who framed charges against the accused appellant and the co-accused in the above terms. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As the offence under Section 302 IPC was Sessions triable, the case was committed for trial to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District who framed charges against the accused appellant and the co-accused in the above terms. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 32 witnesses and exhibited 97 documents and 8 Articles to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, the accused claimed to be innocent and alleged that they had been falsely implicated. 10. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and, evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Judge proceeded to convict and sentence the accused appellant as above whereas the co-accused persons who were charged for conspiracy, were acquitted by the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2013 which is assailed in this appeal. 11. On 10.07.2019, this Court was in the process of taking the appeal up for hearing, when it was realized that the FSL report dated 24.12.2010, though available on the file had not been exhibited, upon which, it was directed that the accused appellant be summoned from the Central Jail, Jodhpur through a production warrant so that report could be exhibited and explanation of the accused be sought under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in relation thereto. Accordingly, the accused was presented in the Court on 16.07.2019. His supplementary statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the FSL report dated 24.12.2010 was exhibited and marked as Ex.C/1 in his presence. A pertinent question was put to him in relation thereto under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which, he feigned ignorance. Final arguments were heard on 29.07.2019. 12. Shri Iqbal Sherani, Advocate representing the appellant vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. He urged that the presence of the accused appellant and the alleged eye-witnesses at the scene of the occurrence when the incident took place, is very doubtful and the alleged sequence of events has not been proved by any cogent clinching or trustworthy evidence. According to him, the first informant Dy. Superintendent Ashok Upadhyay was not present at the spot and was called from his quarter at a later point of time. According to him, the first informant Dy. Superintendent Ashok Upadhyay was not present at the spot and was called from his quarter at a later point of time. The presence of the so-called eye-witnesses being the jail officials and guards at the spot is highly doubtful because they made no effort whatsoever to prevent the incident or to save Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt from the alleged attack. He further contended that the distance between the place from where the accused started shouting and running towards Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt waiving the knife and the point where the knife injury was allegedly inflicted, is quite long and thus, there was ample time as well as opportunity for the witnesses to have prevented the attack. However, they made no effort whatsoever to thwart the accused from assaulting Shri Bharat Bhushan and thus, presence of the witnesses becomes doubtful at the scene of occurrence. He further contended that the prosecution has failed to lead any significant evidence whatsoever so as to prove that the accused had a motive to kill Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt. As per him, though it was portrayed by the prosecution that the accused refused to perform the jail duties assigned to him but he was never subjected to jail punishment on this count and thus, as per Shri Sherani, the allegation regarding there existing a strife between the accused and Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt, is not fortified. He further contended that the recovery of knife effected at the instance of the accused is totally fabricated as it is amply demonstrated from the statement of the investigating officer and other witnesses present at the spot that all possible efforts were made to trace out and seize the weapon of offence on the very day of the incident. The accused was immediately locked up inside a solitary cell and he got virtually no opportunity whatsoever to hide the knife. As per Shri Sherani, it is impossible to believe that despite the minute and thorough combing operations undertaken by the police officials in the presence of the jail officials, the weapon of offence could not be traced. The accused was immediately locked up inside a solitary cell and he got virtually no opportunity whatsoever to hide the knife. As per Shri Sherani, it is impossible to believe that despite the minute and thorough combing operations undertaken by the police officials in the presence of the jail officials, the weapon of offence could not be traced. He submitted that not even a single witness from amongst the prisoners lodged at the Central Jail on the day of the incident and who were present at the spot, was examined as an independent witness so as to lend corroboration to the testimony of the interested and partisan jail officials. On these grounds, Shri Sherani craved acceptance of the appeal urging that the impugned judgment is bad in facts as well as in law and has been rendered without proper appreciation of evidence available on record and thus, the same deserves to be set aside. 13. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Sherani. He urged that presence of the jail officials including the first informant at the time of incident cannot be disputed because all of them were posted at the Central Jail, Jodhpur and it is a mandatory requirement of the Jail Manual that they would have to remain present inside the prison premises when the head count of the prisoners is made for sending them back to their respective barracks at the end of the day. He urged that the jail officials have unrestricted access to the prison and even if for argument's sake, it is accepted that on some occasion, the entry was not made by them in the entry register, no adverse inference can be drawn therefrom. He urged that the accused was inside the prison since long and had extensive knowledge of the nooks and crannies where the weapon could be hidden. Due to the unprecedented and sudden murderous assault on the jailor which took place, the entire jail staff was shell shocked and thus, they rightly took the steps to ensure the immediate well-being of the jailor Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt and made arrangements for sending him to the hospital. In the meantime, the accused was locked up in a solitary cell so as to prevent further damage and for security reasons as the barracks could not have been left open after the closure time. In the meantime, the accused was locked up in a solitary cell so as to prevent further damage and for security reasons as the barracks could not have been left open after the closure time. He was locked up into a solitary cell in barrack No.9. He had no chance to change his clothes. The accused was a previous convict and thus, he could be formally arrested in the present case on the second day after procuring production warrant from the CJM Court. The clothes worn by the accused were stained with blood and were seized. The knife which the accused cleverly concealed under the gutter lid covering the drain having jammer wires, was recovered in furtherance of the voluntary information provided by him to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The clothes of the deceased, the blood stained soil collected from the place of incident, the clothes of the accused, the weapon of the offence (knife) were forwarded to the FSL from where, a report was received establishing the presence of B Group blood on all these articles. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the High Court in reference to the same blood grouping on the articles, the accused did not offer any kind of explanation whatsoever and feigned ignorance. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, the eyewitnesses being the jail officials had no motive whatsoever so as to falsely implicate the accused appellant. Their presence at the place of incident was absolutely natural and their evidence is convincing and clearly establish his guilt beyond all manner of doubt. He urged that when the accused appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the statements of the witnesses, he only stated that the jail guards and officials, etc. had given evidence against him because they all were employees of the Jail Department. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, merely because the witnesses were the peers of Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt, that would not, by itself, imply that they would have given false evidence against the appellant. He urged that for these guards/ officials, all the convicts are at par and there is absolutely no reason as to why, they would select and single out only the appellant as being the assailant who killed Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt by inflicting a knife blow to him. He urged that for these guards/ officials, all the convicts are at par and there is absolutely no reason as to why, they would select and single out only the appellant as being the assailant who killed Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt by inflicting a knife blow to him. He thus craved dismissal of the appeal and sought affirmation of the impugned Judgment. 14. We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar, perused the impugned judgment and have threadbare reappreciated the evidence available on record. 15. The following facts are clearly established from the evidence available on record: (i) that Shri Ata-ur-Rehman, Superintendent, Central Jail had proceeded on leave on 16.09.2010 and the charge had been given to the Dy. Superintendent Shri Ashok Upadhyay, (ii) that the deceased Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt (PW-1) Shri Ashok Upadhyay, Dy. Superintendent- cum- Acting Superintendent, (PW-2) Shri Laxminarayan, Assistant Jailor, (PW3) Shri Omprakash, Assistant Jailor, (PW-4) Shri Joraram, Jail Guard, (PW-5) Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Jail Guard, (PW-6) Shri Bhagwana Ram, Jail Guard, (PW-7) Shri Ata-ur-Rehman, Superintendent Central Jail, Jodhpur, (PW-8) Jail Guard Shri Kartar Choudhary, (PW-9) Jaisingh, Constable and (PW-10) Almuddin Qureshi, Chief Jail Guard were all posted at the Central Jail, Jodhpur on the date of the incident i.e. 18.09.2010. The prosecution has proved the relevant jail duty registers, which establish the fact that these persons were undeniably posted at the Central Jail, Jodhpur on the date of incident. 16. Though the defence counsel, seriously disputed the fact that no complaint had been made against the accused appellant of disrupting the jail discipline but from the history ticket of the convict (Ex.P/23A), it is clear that the convict appellant was entered in the Central Jail, Jodhpur on 14.08.2007 and he was assigned certain duties at the factory, however, he did not do the work for a significant period of time. Remarks to this effect were recorded in the history ticket of the convict appellant. Thus, from these entries made in the history ticket of the accused, a significant corroboration is received regarding the prosecution allegation that the accused appellant indulged in avoiding work at the Jail factory and thus, the theory that he was irked with Shri Bhatt gets substantiated. From these facts, the prosecution case that the accused avoided to perform jail duties and as a consequence, the deceased Jailor Bharat Bhushan Bhatt reprimanded him is duly established and fortified. 17. From these facts, the prosecution case that the accused avoided to perform jail duties and as a consequence, the deceased Jailor Bharat Bhushan Bhatt reprimanded him is duly established and fortified. 17. The defence counsel, tried to dispute the presence of Dy. Superintendent Shri Ashok Upadhyay in the prison at the time of incident by urging that the witness admitted that no officer could enter the prison without making entry in the Jail register and that the relevant entry of Shri Ashok Upadhyay entering in the prison was not available on the record and hence, it should be presumed that the official was not present at the spot and has been created to be an eye-witness. On going through the evidence of Shri Ashok Upadhyay (PW-1) and more particularly, the crossexamination made from him, it is clear that the witness categorically stated that he and all other jail officials were mandatorily required to record their entry in the jail. Nonetheless, he admitted that the register entries corresponding to the date of incident were not available on record. Merely because, these register entries were not proved on record, no such inference can be drawn that the concerned officials including Shri Ashok Upadhyay were not present in the jail at the time of the incident. If at all, the defence was desirous of contesting the assertion of the prosecution regarding the presence of Shri Upadhyay and the other jail officials and guards inside the jail premises at the time of incident, then, an appropriate application could have been filed for summoning the corresponding registers. However, it is an admitted fact that no such attempt was ever made by the defence during trial. Hence, there is no reason to doubt the oral evidence of these witnesses who are public servants on this aspect and we have no hesitation in holding that the concerned jail authorities/ guards, who have been portrayed to be the eye witnesses of the incident, were undoubtedly present at the Central Jail, Jodhpur when the incident took place. 18. The star prosecution witness upon whose testimony, the prosecution as well as the trial court placed reliance, is none other than Shri Ashok Upadhyay (PW-1) Dy. Superintendent the first informant who was holding charge of Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur. In his sworn testimony, he repeated the allegations levelled in the written report (Ex.P/1). 18. The star prosecution witness upon whose testimony, the prosecution as well as the trial court placed reliance, is none other than Shri Ashok Upadhyay (PW-1) Dy. Superintendent the first informant who was holding charge of Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur. In his sworn testimony, he repeated the allegations levelled in the written report (Ex.P/1). In addition, he stated that the accused appellant was earlier lodged at the Central Jail, Jaipur. From there, he was transferred to Central Jail, Bharatpur and then to Central Jail, Jodhpur. While the accused was at Central Jail, Jaipur, the deceased Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt was also posted there and the relations between the two were strained. The witness stated that Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt told him that the accused appellant bore a grudge against him. Extensive and prolonged cross-examination was made from the witness on behalf of the accused appellant. He admitted that the accused must have brought the knife by concealing the same. If any prisoner was seen behaving unusually or rushing inside the prison, the guards were under an obligation to apprehend him. However, on the day of the incident, the nine guards posted outside the respective barracks did not apprehend the accused appellant. Explaining this omission on part of the jail guards, the witness clarified that the accused shouted just on reaching near the place of incident and thus, none of the guards could notice any unusual behaviour. He could not say whether Prakash Sharma whose duty was at point 'V' shown in the Site Plan (Ex.P/4) made any attempt to catch the accused or not. He could not disclose the name of the prisoners who came at the spot after the incident. He further elaborated that after the incident, the accused was put in the solitary cell No.9A. He gave information to the Police Station Ratanada within 10-15 minutes of the incident upon which the I.G. and the police officials arrived in the jail premises within half an hour. Lengthy cross-examination was made from the witness regarding the lack of efforts to search for the knife used in the incident but nothing significant was achieved. He explained that consequence of a convict refusing to work in the jail factory would lead to deprivation of remission. The attempt of the prisoner to avoid work could be because of a strife with the jail authorities. He explained that consequence of a convict refusing to work in the jail factory would lead to deprivation of remission. The attempt of the prisoner to avoid work could be because of a strife with the jail authorities. He could not say as to how the accused managed to bring the knife inside the prison and explained that an inquiry was made in this regard the result thereof was not known to him. Upon a thorough evaluation of the evidence of the witness Dy. Superintendent Shri Ashok Upadhyaya (PW-1), we are duly satisfied that he has given a truthful and faithful narration regarding having witnessed the accused appellant inflicting a knife injury to the deceased Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt which ultimately proved fatal. The defence could not impeach the credibility of the witness despite lengthy cross-examination. 19. The witnesses (PW-3) Omprakash, Jailor; (PW-4) Joraram, Jail Guard; (PW-5) Yogesh Kumar, Jail Guard; and (PW-6) Bhagwana Ram, Jail Guard were also the eye-witnesses to the incident. They have given natural and convincing evidence regarding having seen the accused appellant inflicting the knife blow to the deceased Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt. They too could not be shaken during cross-examination and their evidence is of sterling worth. 20. (Pw-10) Almuddin Qureshi, who was posted as the Mukhya Prahari on the day of the incident, asserted that he was on guard duty of the cell of ward No.9 on 18.09.2010 between 02.00 pm. to 10.00 pm. He checked the prisoners and got the food distributed amongst them at about 04.00-04.30 pm. At 06.00- 06.15 pm., a prisoner came near the gate No.2 from gate No.1 and started raising a hue and cry on which, he inquired as to why he was shouting. The prisoner who was identified by the witness as the accused appellant Narendra Singh stated that he had been involved in a quarrel. His hands and clothes were stained with blood. The witness asked the convict him as to how he managed to reach the main gate. While the witness was trying to tackle the prisoner, the jailor Omprakash came there. He instructed that the convict prisoner should be locked in the cell on which the witness took and locked the convict up in the cell No.9A. 21. As per the deposition of the Medical Officer (PW-27) Dr. While the witness was trying to tackle the prisoner, the jailor Omprakash came there. He instructed that the convict prisoner should be locked in the cell on which the witness took and locked the convict up in the cell No.9A. 21. As per the deposition of the Medical Officer (PW-27) Dr. P.C. Vyas, while conducting postmortem upon the body of Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt, a stab wound measuring 3.6 cms. X 0.5 cm. was noticed on the right side of the neck below the ear. The edges of the wound were clean cut and were averted. In addition thereto, two bruises were noticed on the left hand of the deceased. The dissection of the Injury No.1 was carried out and it was found that the wound cut the subcutaneous tissues, the neck muscles and pierced the right jugular vein and had reached upto the lumen of trachea. The trachea was also cut by 1/2 cm. The injury was opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Nothing significant was elicited in the cross-examination conducted by the defence from the medical officer. Thus, the medical evidence as deposed by Dr. P.C. Vyas is sufficient to conclude that the neck injury inflicted to the deceased by the sharp weapon was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that the same was inflicted by a knife like weapon. 22. From the evidence of investigating officer (PW-30) Tara Chand and (PW-1) Ashok Upadhyay, it is duly established that during the course of investigation, the spot inspection was conducted, the body of Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt was subjected to postmortem at the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. The accused was arrested after procuring a production warrant. The clothes worn by him at the time of arrest bore blood stains and were seized. The accused provided a voluntary information (Ex.P/P/72) to the I.O. Anant Kumar (PW-32) in furtherance whereof, the weapon used to assault the deceased Bharat Bhushan Bhatt (knife) was recovered and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/7). The clothes of the deceased, the blood stained soil collected from the place of incident, the blood stained clothes of the accused and the knife were all forwarded to the FSL for analysis from where a report (Ex.C/1) was received establishing the presence of 'B' Group Human Blood on all the blood stained articles. 23. The clothes of the deceased, the blood stained soil collected from the place of incident, the blood stained clothes of the accused and the knife were all forwarded to the FSL for analysis from where a report (Ex.C/1) was received establishing the presence of 'B' Group Human Blood on all the blood stained articles. 23. Though Shri Sherani, the learned counsel representing the accused, did not even raise any argument regarding the link evidence produced by the prosecution to prove that all the blood stained samples and articles remained in an intact condition from the date of seizure till they reached the FSL, but despite that, we have minutely and thoroughly examined the testimony of the concerned witnesses regarding the safe-keeping and transit of these articles and find that they have given clinching, cogent and convincing evidence establishing the fact that the control and the blood stained articles were seized and sealed during investigation. They were deposited in the FSL in an untampered condition. There is proper proof of the fact that all these articles were received at the FSL in the self same sealed condition in which they were deposited in the Maalkhana. At the FSL, these articles were analysed and a report dated 24.12.2010 (Ex.C/1) was issued establishing presence of 'B' Group Human Blood on all these articles. We may note here that the Public Prosecutor as well as the trial court were rather casual and failed to ensure that the FSL report is exhibited and a question in relation thereto is put to the accused but this court exercised the powers under Section 391 read with Section 313 Cr.P.C.; exhibited the report and sought the explanation of the accused by questioning him under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. The accused did not offer any explanation whatsoever to this gravely incriminating piece of evidence which corroborates the evidence of the eye-witnesses to the hilt. Even if, for a moment, we accept the contention of Shri Sherani that there is no positive evidence that the accused was ever reprimanded by the deceased Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt, mere lack of motive cannot exonerate the accused from the charges particularly so, when the prosecution case is based on clinching, cogent and convincing evidence of eye witnesses which is corroborated by the incriminating recoveries and the FSL report (Ex.C/1). 24. 24. Having discussed and evaluated the entire record thoroughly and minutely, we are of the firm opinion that the trial court, appreciated the entire evidence available on record in an absolutely apropos manner and arrived at the only possible conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused. The impugned judgment dated 19.12.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Jodhpur does not suffer from any infirmity or error, factual or legal, warranting interference. 25. Accordingly, the appeal fails as being devoid of merit and is dismissed as such. 26. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.