JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order of conviction dated 08.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 35/2015 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Offence Sentence Offence Sentence U/s 323 IPC 1 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month additional S.I. U/s 302 IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' additional S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently 2. The prosecution story emanates from a written report (Ex.P/8) filed by one Gajendra (P.W. 9), son of the deceased, Gyanchand, wherein he alleged that on 06.11.2010 at 8.00 A.M., his father Gyanchand Bhargav was called by Navratan who came to his house and took away his father with him at his residence. When his father did not return, he went to the house of Navratan at around 4.00 P.M. who, threatened him with a knife and bolted the gate of his house from inside. He came back to his house and called his uncle Dharmaram. Both of them went to the house of Navratan at around 5.00 P.M. At that time, the gate of his house was open. They went inside and saw that Navratan was holding a knife in his hand and assaulting his father with a knife and inflicted stab wounds on his chest and neck. When they raised a hue and cry, Navratan went up to the terrace of his house and threw a big stone on his uncle, who sustained injuries on his right shoulder and hand. He went up the terrace and tried to catch hold of Navratan, who jumped down and sustained some injuries. Thereafter, the police was informed and 108 Ambulance was called. The accused was taken to the hospital in the Ambulance. He, his uncle Hansraj and Dharmaram, Kishore Bhargav and Vinod etc. took his father to the hospital, where he was declared dead. 3. On this report, a formal F.I.R. No. 531/2010 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Nagaur for the offences under Sections 302, 336 & 323 of I.P.C. against the accused-appellant. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the accusedappellant on 07.11.2010. 4. took his father to the hospital, where he was declared dead. 3. On this report, a formal F.I.R. No. 531/2010 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Nagaur for the offences under Sections 302, 336 & 323 of I.P.C. against the accused-appellant. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the accusedappellant on 07.11.2010. 4. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302 & 323 of I.P.C. 5. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Sections 302 & 323 of I.P.C. to the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/35 documents were exhibited. 7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he was innocent. He claimed that he was living at Jodhpur from four years prior to the incident. His house was locked. He returned home on the date of incident and saw a number of persons collected outside his house and on seeing him, they started assaulting him. He became unconscious owing to the injuries sustained by him. He found himself in the hospital on regaining consciousness. He was arrested without any justification. Gyanchand was having enmical relations with a large number of persons in the locality. When he reached the house, he found that it had been broken into but because he was arrested immediately thereafter, he could not initiate the proceedings for the house breaking. However, the accused-appellant did not produce any oral evidence but got exhibited documents Ex.D/1 & Ex.D/2 in his defence. 8. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 08.12.2017. Hence this appeal. (4 of 20) [CRLAD-46/2018] 9. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and have carefully and threadbare perused the entire evidence available on record. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the accused-appellant was falsely implicated for the alleged murder of Gyanchand as there is no evidence on record to show or suggest that the present appellant was involved in the commission of the offences alleged against him. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the accused-appellant was falsely implicated for the alleged murder of Gyanchand as there is no evidence on record to show or suggest that the present appellant was involved in the commission of the offences alleged against him. 11. He further submitted that there exist material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The so-called eye-witnesses are not reliable as they being close relatives of the deceased are interested witnesses and had a significant motive to falsely implicate the accused-appellant in the case. 12. He further submitted that independent witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 - Pukhraj, P.W. 2 - Amritlal and P.W. 3 - Kishan Lal did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile. 13. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record to pinpoint the author of the injuries caused to Gyanchand as the Investigation Officer failed to collect and get compared the finger prints present on the knife used for inflicting the injuries to Gyanchand which was recovered while lying besides the dead body. Therefore, the accused-appellant cannot be connected with the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife which was allegedly used for inflicting fatal blows to the deceased Gyanchand. 14. He further submitted that if fatal injuries were inflicted by the accused-appellant then, as a natural consequence, the clothes i.e. shirt etc. worn by him would have received bloodstains. But as per the F.S.L. Report (Ex.P/29), no bloodstains of "B" blood group were found on the shirt of the accused-appellant which proves that he was not responsible for inflicting injuries to the deceased. 15. He further submitted that the accused-appellant himself was found unconscious at the scene of the occurrence and was taken to the hospital soon after the incident. He vehemently submitted that there was no motive for the accused-appellant to cause fatal injuries to the deceased Gyanchand. 16. Learned counsel on the strength of these arguments urges that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that present appellant was responsible for the murder of Gyanchand and therefore, the learned trial court committed grave factual and legal error while convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the alleged offences as above vide Judgment dated 08.12.2017 and thus, he is entitled to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 17. 17. In the alternative, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that there was no premeditation and if the injuries were sustained by the deceased Gyanchand, the same were because of a sudden altercation between him and the accused-appellant as they used to consume liquor together regularly and thus, the incident happened out of grave and sudden provocation given by the deceased to the accused, and therefore, the case of the accused-appellant should be considered for toning it down to that under Section 304 Part - I I.P.C. from Section 302 of I.P.C. 18. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the accusedappellant has relied upon the following judgments :- (1) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sunil reported in , (2017) AIR SC 2150. The relevant Para Nos. 57 & 58 of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel are reproduced as under :- "57. The limited nature of the admissibility of the facts discovered pursuant to the statement of the accused under Section 27 can be illustrated by the following example: Suppose a person accused of murder deposes to the police officer the fact as a result of which the weapon with which the crime is committed is discovered, but as a result of such discovery no inference can be drawn against the accused, if there is no evidence connecting the knife with the crime alleged to have been committed by the accused. 58. So the objection of the defense counsel to the discovery made by the prosecution in this case cannot be sustained. But the discovery by itself does not help the prosecution to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on A-4 and A-5 by the High Court." (2) Navaneethakrishnan Vs. State by Inspector of Police reported in , (2018) AIR SC 2027. The relevant Para No. 23 of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is as under :- "23) The law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. When the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. There is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The Court in mindful of caution by the settled principles of law and the decisions rendered by this Court that in a given case like this, where the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap and pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one had committed the offence, which in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove." (3) Ratan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in , (2015) 3 RCR(Criminal) 88. The relevant Para Nos. 12 & 13 of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel are reproduced as under :- "12. We have seen the nature of injuries on the person of Nandu which include severe violence to her body apart from the severance of both her legs. The High Court has assumed that perhaps there was some sort of a triangular love, affair or possibly robbery was the motive of the crime. Given the nature of injuries, it is difficult to imagine that the motive for the crime was robbery or the consequence of a triangular love affair. We also find from the testimony of the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination that the alleged weapon of offence was not put to him and no information was sought from him in this regard. 13. According to the prosecution, Ratan Lal had used a knife in committing the crime. We also find from the testimony of the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination that the alleged weapon of offence was not put to him and no information was sought from him in this regard. 13. According to the prosecution, Ratan Lal had used a knife in committing the crime. Given the nature of injuries, the question whether the injuries on Nandu could have been inflicted by a knife ought to have been put to the doctor but was not. Rameshwar and Bhanwar give no indication that Ratan Lal was carrying a knife or any other weapon of offence. Implicating Ratan Lal and Smt. Prem Devi for the murder of Nandu on the thin evidence of Rameshwar and Bhanwar is not justified." (4) Sangili Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in , (2014) AIR SC 3756. The relevant Para No. 26 of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is as under :- "26. It is settled position of law that suspicion however strong cannot be a substitute for proof. In a case resting completely on the circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead only to one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused. In our opinion, it is not safe to record a finding of guilt of the appellant and the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set-aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant be set at liberty unless required in any other case." (5) Chet Ram Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in , (2014) 4 RCR(Criminal) 745. The relevant Para Nos. 11 to 13 of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel are reproduced as under :- "11. During trial, in his testimony as PW1, Dharam Chand has stated that when he and Udairaj were selling guavas on the road side, he saw both the accused surrounding his brother Udairaj and accused No. 2 Chetram had got hold of Udairaj and accused No. 1 Ganga Ram inflicted stab injuries on Udairaj with knife and when he ran towards them both the accused fled away. PW2 Banwari Lal and PW3 Balwant have not seen the occurrence but have witnessed accused persons fleeing away after the occurrence. PW2 Banwari Lal and PW3 Balwant have not seen the occurrence but have witnessed accused persons fleeing away after the occurrence. Hence the solitary eye-witness to the occurrence is PW1 Dharam Singh and his testimony in court is an improvement on the version given by him in the FIR in which he has not attributed any overt act to accused No. 2 Chetram in the attack made on Udairaj during the occurrence. Further, no role was assigned to accused No. 2 Chetram by Dharam Singh in his statement given under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure before the Investigation Officer. For the first time in his deposition before the court he has come out with the version that accused No. 2 Chetram caught hold of Udairaj while the attack was made by accused No. 1 Ganga Ram on him during the occurrence. We have a lurking suspicion in our mind so far as the overt act of accused No. 2 Chetram is concerned. It is difficult to place any reliance on the testimony of PW1 Dharam Singh as regards the involvement of the Appellant herein in the incident. 12. The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Anil Prakash Shukla v. Arvind Shukla, Idrish Bhai Daudbhai v. State of Gujarat and Baital Singh v. State of U.P. , (1990) CriLJ 2091). 13. Though the prosecution has established that Udairaj died of homicidal violence by adducing medical evidence the involvement of the Appellant Chetram in the said incident remains doubtful and the benefit of doubt has to be given to him in the circumstances stated above." (6) Atul Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in , (2018) AIR SC 570. The relevant Para Nos. 11 to 13 of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel are reproduced as under :- "11. Taking into account the events as unfolded, it leaves no manner of doubt that the Appellant had no intention to cause the death of Hitesh Thakur. The incident happened without any premeditation in a sudden fight between Hitesh Thakur and the Appellant and in heat of passion the Appellant inflicted six knife blows on Hitesh Thakur. On the contrary, after realising his mistake, he immediately offered water to Hitesh Thakur and also took him to hospital and stayed there till his last rites were performed. The incident happened without any premeditation in a sudden fight between Hitesh Thakur and the Appellant and in heat of passion the Appellant inflicted six knife blows on Hitesh Thakur. On the contrary, after realising his mistake, he immediately offered water to Hitesh Thakur and also took him to hospital and stayed there till his last rites were performed. PW-2 father of deceased Hitesh Thakur also corroborates the position that the Appellant had contacted him to inform that Hitesh had been brought to the hospital in serious condition. 12. Taking overall view of the matter, the facts of the present case warrant invocation of Exception 4 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code. For, it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder inasmuch as the incident happened on account of sudden fight between the friends who had gathered for a drink party arranged at the behest of Hitesh Thakur. There was no premediation and the act done by the Appellant was in the heat of passion without the Appellant taking any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The number of wounds caused by the Appellant, it is a well established position, by itself cannot be a decisive factor. The High Court committed manifest error in being influenced by the said fact. What is relevant is that the occurrence was sudden and not premeditated and the offender acted in the heat of passion. The evidence supports the case of the Appellant in this behalf. The fact that the Appellant used weapon such as knife, is also not a decisive factor to attract Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Neither the use of a knife in the commission of offence nor the factum of multiple injuries given by the Appellant would deny the Appellant of the benefit of Exception 4. 13. Dealing with a somewhat similar situation, in the case of Surain Singh v. State of Punjab , (2017) 5 SCC 796 , this Court has restated the settled legal position about the purport of Exception 4 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code. Even in that case, the Accused had repeatedly assaulted the deceased with a Kirpan and caused injuries resulting into death. After restating the legal position, the Court converted the offence to one Under Section 304 Part-II instead of Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Even in that case, the Accused had repeatedly assaulted the deceased with a Kirpan and caused injuries resulting into death. After restating the legal position, the Court converted the offence to one Under Section 304 Part-II instead of Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Following the same legal principle and keeping in mind the factual position as unfolded, the view taken by the Trial Court of convicting the Appellant for offence punishable Under Section 304 Part-II, is unexceptionable. The Trial Court had observed thus: "60. The evidence placed on record by the prosecution, reveals that deceased Hitesh and the Accused were having cordial relations since long, knowing to each other and were good friends. A party was organized by the deceased in the room of Accused Mukesh and deceased himself invited all the Accused to attend the party. In this party, large quantity of alcohol was consumed by them and suddenly an altercation took place between deceased Hitesh and Accused Atul Thakur as a result of which Accused Atul stabbed Hitesh, which resulted into his death...... 61. There is no doubt that Hitesh met a homicidal death on the night intervening 27/28.07/2011 at IGMC, Shimla consequent to stab injury inflicted by Accused Atul Thakur. The question which arises for consideration is whether this action of the Accused which caused the death of Hitesh would amount to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is an admitted fact that there was no enmity between the deceased and this Accused rather they were having cordial relations. The fact that there was a physical fight between the deceased and the Accused Atul, cannot be denied because it has come in the evidence of PW-11 Himanshu, PW-12 Manoj Bansal and PW-1 Ashutosh that a physical fight has taken place between them. In these circumstances, this Court will have to examine the prosecution evidence whether the Accused Atul had taken an undue advantage or acted in a cruel or inimical manner so as to deprive him of the benefit of exception 4 of Section 300. In fact, the prosecution could not prove any motive for killing the deceased by the accused. The drinking session in the room of the Accused Mukesh Thakur was by mutual consent. From these circumstances, it can be held that the incident in question took place in a sudden fight in the heat of possession. In fact, the prosecution could not prove any motive for killing the deceased by the accused. The drinking session in the room of the Accused Mukesh Thakur was by mutual consent. From these circumstances, it can be held that the incident in question took place in a sudden fight in the heat of possession. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the Accused Atul did take an undue advantage of the said fight or acted in a cruel or inimical manner. Keeping in view the fact that both the deceased and Accused had consumed considerable amount of alcohol which is established from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it cannot be altogether ruled out that the stab injuries inflicted were not with an intention of taking undue advantage by the Accused Atul. It is probable that in an inebriated condition the Accused inflicted the injuries because of the physical fight between them. Moreover, keeping in view the nature of the injuries noticed by Dr. Sandeep Kaushik in the MLC Ext. PW-18/A, it is difficult to accept the Accused Atul Thakur intended to cause the death of Hitesh or that the injuries were so dangerous that they would in all probability, cause death. Nevertheless, the injuries were quite serious, the Accused can surely by credited with the knowledge that if an injury is caused with a knife on the chest or abdomen of a person then this act is likely to cause the death of the victim. 62. Having considered the material on record this Court is of the opinion that the Accused Atul Thakur can only be found guilty of an offence punishable Under Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code." 19. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the allegations and charges against the accused-appellant beyond all manner of doubt. The witnesses P.W. 5 - Mukesh Kumar, P.W. 6 - Hansraj, P.W. 9 Gajendra and P.W. 16 - Dharmaram gave cogent, clinching and reliable evidence and the testimony of these eye-witnesses clearly establishes the fact that accused-appellant inflicted fatal injuries to the deceased Gyanchand which proved instantaneously fatal. The witnesses P.W. 5 - Mukesh Kumar, P.W. 6 - Hansraj, P.W. 9 Gajendra and P.W. 16 - Dharmaram gave cogent, clinching and reliable evidence and the testimony of these eye-witnesses clearly establishes the fact that accused-appellant inflicted fatal injuries to the deceased Gyanchand which proved instantaneously fatal. He further submitted that the ocular evidence of these witnesses is amply corroborated from the medical evidence, postmortem report (Ex.P/35) and the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife (Ex.P/5) coupled with the report of F.S.L. (Ex.P/29) showing presence of blood group "B" on the weapon of offence i.e. Knife matching with the blood group found on the bloodstained clothes of the deceased, which completes the chain of circumstances establishing that it was the accused-appellant who committed murder of the deceased Gyanchand and none else. He further submitted that the learned trial court, after evaluating the entire facts and evidence, come to the only possible and logical conclusion and rightly convicted the accused-appellant for the offences alleged in the present case vide Judgment dated 08.12.2017, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 20. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and minutely gone through the record of the learned trial court as well as judgment dated 08.12.2017 impugned herein. 21. P.W. 9 - Gajendra being the son of the deceased stated that house of the accused was located near old power station and on the day next to Deepawali i.e. 06.11.2010, Navratan came to their house in the morning at 8.00 A.M. and took his father Gyanchand with him under the pretext that he had some work with him. When his father did not return back home till 4 O'clock, he went to the house of Navratan who threatened him with a knife. He returned back and went back to the house of Navratan with his uncle Dharmaram. They saw Navratan sitting on top of his father and within their view, he inflicted two knife blows on the chest and neck of Gyanchand. When they tried to nab Navratan, he went to the terrace of his house and started throwing stones at them, due to which his uncle sustained injury on his right hand. Navratan also sustained injuries by falling from the terrace. The inhabitants of the locality gathered on the spot. His father was taken to the hospital. When they tried to nab Navratan, he went to the terrace of his house and started throwing stones at them, due to which his uncle sustained injury on his right hand. Navratan also sustained injuries by falling from the terrace. The inhabitants of the locality gathered on the spot. His father was taken to the hospital. Navratan was also taken to the hospital in the 108 Ambulance. He appended his signatures on the memos prepared by the police during the course of investigation. 22. P.W. 16 - Dharmpal who was brother of the deceased Gyanchand stated that at around 4.30 P.M. on 06.11.2010, Gajendra came to his house and stated that Navratan was assaulting his father Gyanchand. He accompanied Gajendra and went to the house of Navratan, where he saw that Navratan was inflicting knife blows to Gyanchand. Soon thereafter, he ran towards the terrace and started throwing stones, one of which hit him on the right shoulder causing a fracture. Although, ambulance was called but his brother was taken to the hospital in a tempo. Navratan jumped from the terrace and sustained injuries and he was also taken to the hospital. In the crossexamination of this witness, he stated that he did not see bloodstains on the knife which was lying at the place of incident. They did not handover the knife to the police. When he reached the house of Navratan, he saw that dead body was lying inside the house. There was no litigation pending between the accused Navratan and the deceased Gyanchand. 23. We shall discuss the veracity of the evidence of these two witnesses later. 24. P.W. 5 - Mukesh Kumar who was inhabitant of the same locality stated that at around 4.30 P.M., on hearing a hue and cry, he went towards the house of Navratan and saw Navratan inflicting injuries to Gyanchand with a knife on his chest and neck. When people gathered, the accused went to the terrace of his house and in order to create fear, he threw stones from the top, one of which hit Dharmaram, due to which he sustained a fracture on his hand. Thereafter, Gyanchand was taken to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead. When people gathered, the accused went to the terrace of his house and in order to create fear, he threw stones from the top, one of which hit Dharmaram, due to which he sustained a fracture on his hand. Thereafter, Gyanchand was taken to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead. In the cross-examination of this witness, he stated that when he reached the place of incident, Dharmaram, Hansraj and Gajendra were present and thereafter, a number of people from their locality gathered. He denied that Gajendra was inside the house of Navratan when Gyanchand died. He reached the house of Navratan after 10-20 minutes. 25. P.W. 6 - Hansraj stated in his statement almost on the same lines as deposed by P.W. 5 - Mukesh Kumar. 26. P.W. 17 - Dr. Arshad Hussain stated that he examined Dharmaram (P.W. 16) and prepared his injury report (Ex.P/29). He stated that he also examined the accused Navratan and prepared his injury report (Ex.P/30). He further stated that at the request of the police, he conducted the postmortem of the deceased Gyanchand on 07.11.2010. He described the dimensions and location of injuries sustained by the deceased Gyanchand. He further stated that the cause of death of the deceased Gyanchand was injury inflicted on his neck cutting the main vessels leading to haemorrhagic shock. 27. P.W. 18 - Darjaram was the investigation Officer who conducted investigation of the matter and stated that he prepared the site plan, recorded statements of the witnesses, effected recoveries, collected samples and after completion of investigation, as prescribed in law, submitted the report before the court of competent jurisdiction. 28. The postmortem report is Ex.P/35 wherein the cause of death of the deceased was stated to be injury to main vessels of neck leading to haemorrhagic shock. Arrest memo of the accused-appellant is Ex.P/27 dated 07.11.2010. The recovery memo of bloodstained weapon of offence i.e. knife is Ex.P/5, wherein the attesting witnesses are Pukhraj (P.W. 1) and Kishore Kumar (P.W. 4). The F.S.L. Report is Ex.P/29 wherein the blood group "B" was found on the weapon of offence i.e. knife matching the blood group found on the bloodstained clothes of the deceased sent for F.S.L. examination. 29. The F.S.L. Report is Ex.P/29 wherein the blood group "B" was found on the weapon of offence i.e. knife matching the blood group found on the bloodstained clothes of the deceased sent for F.S.L. examination. 29. Upon threadbare perusal and evaluation of the statements of the witnesses P.W. 4 - Kishore, P.W. 5 - Mukesh Kumar, P.W. 6 - Hansraj, it is apparent that none of these witnesses actually saw the incident happening and reached the place of occurrence after the fatal injuries had been inflicted to Gyanchand. Thus, these witnesses cannot be termed to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. 30. If the evidence of these three witnesses is excluded from consideration then, we are left with the evidence of P.W. 9 - Gajendra (son of the deceased and first informant) and P.W. 16 - Dharmaram (brother of the deceased). Manifestly, after appreciation of the statements of these two witnesses in context to the surrounding circumstances, we are satisfied that these two witnesses also did not actually see the accused-appellant inflicting knife blows on the neck of the deceased. There are significant reasons for reaching to this conclusion. The postmortem report of the deceased (Ex.P/35) and the statement of the Medical Officer i.e. P.W. 17 - Dr. Arshad Hussain make it clear that he noticed only two incised wounds on the body of the deceased Gyanchand; one of them being on the neck and other being on the center of the chest. Hardly any time would be consumed in inflicting such injuries. P.W. 9 - Gajendra (son of the deceased) claimed in his evidence that he went to the house of Navratan at about 4 O'clock, on which, he was shown a knife by the accused-appellant and was threatened. Thereafter, the accused closed the door of his house from inside. Upon this, he went to call his uncle Dharmaram (P.W. 16). The witness claimed that he took his uncle with him and reached back to the house of Navratan at about 4.15 P.M. and in their viewing, Navratan, while sitting on top of his father, stabbed him twice. The story so put forth by the witnesses P.W. 9 - Gajendra and P.W. 16 - Dharmaram does not stand to scrutiny on the touchstone of logic and reasoning. The story so put forth by the witnesses P.W. 9 - Gajendra and P.W. 16 - Dharmaram does not stand to scrutiny on the touchstone of logic and reasoning. If Navratan had closed the door when the witness P.W. 9 - Gajendra first went to his house then, there was no reason for him to open the same again and make an open display to everyone that he was about to stab the deceased. Furthermore, it also does not stand to reason as to why the accused waited for returning of the two witnesses and then, inflicted the injuries to the deceased in their presence. All the independent witnesses i.e. P.W. 4 - Kishore, P.W. 5 - Mukesh Kumar and P.W. 6 - Hansraj admitted in their evidence that after the incident, Gajendra scaled the wall of the house of Navratan and opened the door from inside. 31. In this background, apparently the story put forth in the statement of P.W. 9 - Gajendra and P.W. 16 - Dharmaram that the accused inflicted two stab wounds to the deceased while the gate of his house was lying open, is totally unworthy of credence and without any doubt, these witnesses could not have seen the accused inflicting two stab injuries to the deceased. The knife used to stab the deceased was found lying near the dead body and was not recovered at the instance of the accused. 32. Having held so, we have to deliberate as to whether after discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, can the accused-appellant still be held responsible for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. 33. It is not in dispute that from the evidence of P.W. 9 - Gajendra and rather, it is established beyond all manner of doubt that the accused-appellant took the deceased with him to his house on the day of Rama Shama (the day next to Deepawali) in the morning at about 8 O'clock. The dead body of Gyanchand was thereafter seen lying in the house of the accused-appellant by the various witnesses at about 4.30 in the evening. Thus, these circumstances give rise to the strong inference of the circumstance that the deceased was last seen together in the company of the accused and his dead body was recovered from inside the house of the accused with the fatal blows visible. Thus, these circumstances give rise to the strong inference of the circumstance that the deceased was last seen together in the company of the accused and his dead body was recovered from inside the house of the accused with the fatal blows visible. The accused-appellant tried to take a defence of alibi by claiming that he was not present in his house on the fateful day and had returned from Jodhpur when he was assaulted by the people from locality. However, this plea of alibi which is considered to be by its very nature a weak plea has not been corroborated by leading any evidence whatsoever. The accused-appellant could have presented his mobile call details so as to satisfy the court regarding his absence from the village and the presence at Jodhpur on the date of incident. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the accused took the deceased Gyanchand to his house on the fateful day and thereafter, on the very same day at about 4.30 P.M., the dead body of Gyanchand was recovered from the house of the accused with two stab wounds. The stab wound No. 1 severed the carotid artery and jugular vein which would lead to instantaneous death. The situation of the case at hand is squarely covered by the import of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference :- "106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.-When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him." 34. Since, the place of incident is the house of the accusedappellant and as, none other than him was present in the house with the deceased, the circumstances which unfolded inside the house were singularly in the knowledge of the accused-appellant. The burden of proving these facts was, thus, upon him. By taking an unsustainable plea of alibi, the accused-appellant apparently failed to provide any explanation as to how and in what circumstances, the fatal stab injuries came to be inflicted to the deceased behind the closed doors of house where only he and the deceased were present. It is, thus, our opinion that the explanation furnished by the accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is totally false. It is, thus, our opinion that the explanation furnished by the accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is totally false. Since the accusedappellant has failed to discharge this burden, we have no hesitation in holding that the accused singularly is responsible for inflicting the fatal blows to the deceased. 35. The contention of Shri Sharma that the Investigation Officer did not make any endevour to collect the fingerprints on the knife found lying at the place of incident is also of no consequence because the fateful events and incidents which took place inside the closed house of the accused and were exclusively in his knowledge and thus, merely because no attempt was made by the Investigation Officer to collect the fingerprints from the knife, that by itself cannot be a circumstance to discard the prosecution story when the accused failed to discharge the onus of burden cast upon. 36. We are also least convinced with the submission of Mr. Sharma that the offence attributed to the accused-appellant deserves to be toned down from one under Section 302 of I.P.C. to that under Section 304 Part - I of I.P.C. His contention was that the accused had no motive to commit the murder of the deceased, and thus, the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. cannot be sustained. The said contention is absolutely frivolous and farfetched. The motive can be used as an aid to corroborate the other circumstances appearing in the prosecution case. Mere lack of motive cannot absolve the accused from the crime of murder. Considering the fact that the accused-appellant used dangerous weapon like knife and inflicted such a forceful injury on the neck of the deceased whereby his carotid artery and jugular vein were severed and the repetition of blow on the chest region of the deceased clearly demonstrate that the accused-appellant intended to commit murder of Gyanchand. 37. So far as the argument of the learned counsel that no bloodstains of "B" group were found on the shirt of the accusedappellant is concerned, in our view, the absence of bloodstains of "B" group on the shirt of the accused-appellant cannot absolve him and vitiate other evidence on record which points singularly towards the guilt of the accused-appellant. 38. The judgments cited at Bar by Mr. 38. The judgments cited at Bar by Mr. Sharma are distinguishable on facts as in the case at hand, we have recorded an affirmative satisfaction that the burden to explain as to how the deceased received the fatal injury on his neck inside the house of the accused was solely upon the accused himself. Since he miserably failed to offer any explanation in this regard and rather took a false and unsustainable plea of alibi, the defence is not entitled to any advantage on the strength of the ratio of the judgments cited at bar. 39. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment dated 08.12.2017 passed by the learned trial court convicting the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302 & 323 of I.P.C. deserves to be upheld. 40. Resultantly, the criminal appeal fails and is dismissed as such. The judgment and order dated 08.12.2017 passed by the learned trial court is upheld. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.