JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The appellant/accused prefers, the, instant appeal before this Court, against, the verdict of conviction recorded, upon, Sessions Trial No. 6-N/7 of 2016, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh. The appellant herein (for short "the accused") becomes convicted, for, charges framed against him, under, Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, and, in consequence thereof, he becomes sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and, to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and, upon his defaulting, in, liquidating the sentence of fine, he becomes further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied, in, Ex. PW-9/A, exhibit whereof, is an FIR lodged by one Mohi Ram, vis-a-vis, the occurrence. Complainant Mohi Ram, in his statement borne in Ex. PW-1/A, on, anvil whereof FIR, borne in Ex. PW-9/A, became registered against the convict, though does not narrate therein qua his being an eye witness to the occurrence, (i) however he makes echoings therein, vis-a-vis, upon his hearing outcries, his awakening from slumber, and, his noticing the accused throwing iron rod Ex.PC1, on the lintel, and, thereafter his fleeing, from, the site of occurrence. He also make narrations therein, vis-a-vis, his noticing blood oozing from the head of the deceased, and, his thereafter awakening Ravi, Ved, Kapil and Sanju. After the accused had fled from the site of occurrence, and, preceding wherewith, he threw iron rod on the lintel, the complainant discloses in his previous statement recorded in writing, vis-avis, his chasing the accused, at, some distance. Further more he has also disclosed that thereafter, his summoning civil ambulance, and, on arrival of the Civil Ambulance at the site of occurrence, hence about 1.30-2.00 A.M, his, therein accompanying deceased Shelender, up to, CH Dadahu. In addition, he also makes communications therein, vis-a-vis, on 26.8.2015, the accused at the afore hours, fleeing from the spot, without, his shoes, and, hence the accused leaving his shoes, on the lintel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the accused, has challenged the validity of the impugned verdict of conviction, pronounced against the accused, on anvil(s) qua, (a) the Investigating Officer failing to lift the finger prints, of, the accused, from, the incriminatory iron rod, and, hence the afore omission(s) not firmly connecting, the, user by the accused of Ex. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the accused, has challenged the validity of the impugned verdict of conviction, pronounced against the accused, on anvil(s) qua, (a) the Investigating Officer failing to lift the finger prints, of, the accused, from, the incriminatory iron rod, and, hence the afore omission(s) not firmly connecting, the, user by the accused of Ex. PC1, upon, the head of the deceased; (b) independent witnesses to the occurrence were enjoined to be associated in the relevant investigation, in as much, as, one Sanju, as, thereupon the defence would become enabled to lend succor vis-a-vis its' espousal qua the deceased while sleeping alongwith one Mohi Ram, the latter committing the offence, and, thereafter his inventing and concocting, the, factum of the accused committing, the, charged offence; (c) the recovery of iron rod (Ex. PC1) through memo embodied in Ex. PW-13/A being construable to be a legally flawed, and, legally fallible recovery, as, preceding therewith, no disclosure statement, of the accused became recorded, by the Investigating Officer, nor, in pursuance thereto hence effectuation of recovery of Ex. PC1 at the instance of the accused, became made, and, concomitantly thereupon its user at the instance, of, the accused, becoming vulnerable to skepticism; (d) reports of FSL respectively borne in Ex. PX, PY, and, in Ex.PW-14/A, not making, vivid pronouncements, vis-a-vis, the blood carried, on the exhibits sent thereat, for, examination hence being related to the blood group of the deceased or to the blood group, of, the accused, thereupon also the accused cannot be firmly connected, vis-a-vis, the charges framed against him. 4. For all the reasons ascribed hereinafter, all the afore submissions addressed before this Court, rather become rested,upon, gross mis-appraisal of the evidence qua therewith hence existing on record. Complainant Mohi Ram, though was sleeping besides deceased, and, thereupon the defence, though, strives to coax this Court, in, making an inference, vis-a-vis, the afore committing the offence, and, thereafter proceeds to also wean this Court, to, make a conclusion, vis-a-vis, it being imperative for the prosecution, to, join one Sanju as an independent witness, in the relevant investigation, and, also, to cite him, as a witness, or, if cited, for, ld. P.P not to give him up, as, through him the afore defence would become aptly succored, besides concomitantly hence, the, afore omission(s) rather brings fatality to, the prosecution case. P.P not to give him up, as, through him the afore defence would become aptly succored, besides concomitantly hence, the, afore omission(s) rather brings fatality to, the prosecution case. However, even if the afore factum of the deceased sleeping besides the complainant, is, borne from the evidence on record, however therefrom the afore inference cannot be erected by this Court, (i) as, Mohi Ram even if, is, not an eye witness to the occurrence, yet he awoke, on, outcries becoming raised at the site of occurrence, and, also unerodingly, given repelling thereto suggestions remaining unmeted to him during his cross-examination, despite, his in his examination-in-chief testifying qua his sighting the convict throwing the incriminatory iron rod, on the lintel, (ii) besides also for the afore reason, hence was a credible witness who sighted the accused hence fleeing from the spot, rather after leaving his shoes at the relevant site, of, occurrence. Even if assumingly, the afore propagation, of, the defence, has some strength, however strength, if any, of the afore propagation, made before this Court, by the learned counsel for the accused, becomes frail and weak, (a) through the defence while holding PW-1 (Mohi Ram) to cross-examination rather meteing an affirmative suggestion to him, vis-a-vis, his arousing from slumber, after his hearing outcries, hence, arising, from, the breaking of mirror, and, since an affirmative answer thereto emanated from PW-1, (b) thereupon an inference becomes sparked, vis-a-vis, the defence acquiescing qua (c) even if PW-1 was sleeping besides the deceased, his not, during the course of his sleeping besides him, hence committing the alleged offence, rather his only, upon, arousing from slumber, his getting awakened vis-a-vis the offence. The concomitant sequel therefrom is there being no necessity for the prosecution hence associating the afore Sanju, in, the relevant proceedings, nor, the latter was enjoined to be cited as a prosecution witness, as, (a) obviously the afore Sanju is not an eye witnesses to the occurrence, rather was a post crime witness, (b) whereas Mohi Ram was the person who initially woke up after hearing, the, outcries, and, proceeded to awake the afore Sanju, and, others. 5. 5. The further reasons for benumbing the afore propagation made before this Court, by the defence, is comprised, in, the defence while holding PW-2 (Ved Prakash), to cross-examination, rather meteing an affirmative suggestion to him, vis-a-vis, his apprising the police qua the convict asking for forgiveness from deceased Shelender, (i) and, when an affirmative answer qua therewith emanated from PW-2, necessarily hence enables, the erection, of, an inference, vis-a-vis, the defence there-through acquiescing, visa-vis, the incriminatory role, of, the accused, and, also hence it abandoning the fastening, of, any incriminatory role, vis-a-vis, the complainant, one Mohi Ram. 6. Even otherwise, the un-controverted factum, vis-avis, the complainant summoning the Civil Ambulance, and, his therein's accompanying the deceased to Civil Hospital, Dadahu is perse evidence, of, the complainant's conduct, hence, inconsistent with his guilt. 7. Be that as it may, the post mortem report, proven by PW-5 (Dr. Poojan Jaswal), and, borne in Ex. PW-5/B, carries, therein narrations, vis-a-vis, the hereinafter extracted injuries becoming noticed by her, on, the body of the deceased Shelender. "1. Left black eye. 2. Blood stain swollen nose. 3. Two lacerated wounds on left scalp 4. Fracture Nasal ridge. On opening the skull I found fracture of skull bone and on the brain there were two lacerated wounds on supero lateral surface." Since Ex. PC1, during the course of examination-in-chief of PW-5, also became shown to PW-5, and, the latter, upon, Ex. PC1 becoming shown to her, testified, vis-a-vis, the, demise of deceased being possible with the user thereof, (i) and, the learned defence counsel yet omitting, to, cross-examine PW-5, vis-a-vis, Ex. PC1 being not the weapon of offence, (ii) rather, his meteing a singular suggestion to her, vis-a-vis, the afore alluded injuries, being possible through a singular blow of Ex. PC1, thereupon, the obvious inference, ensuing therefrom, is, qua the defence acquiescing, vis-a-vis, the user, of, Ex. PC1 by the accused. 8. Further more the effect thereof, when become combined with this Court, hence, negating the afore foremost propagation addressed before this Court, thereupon, the accused is concluded to be, at the relevant time, holding Ex. PC1, and, also to with its user, hence strike, the, fatal blow(s), on, the head of the deceased. 9. Though prima-facie the Investigating Officer, becomes enjoined, to, preceding the drawing of Ex. PC1, and, also to with its user, hence strike, the, fatal blow(s), on, the head of the deceased. 9. Though prima-facie the Investigating Officer, becomes enjoined, to, preceding the drawing of Ex. PW-13/A, rather draw, the, apposite disclosure statement, of, the accused, yet no apposite disclosure statement of the accused become recorded, nor, in pursuance thereof, Ex. PC1 became recovered, at, the instance of the accused (a) yet, for, the afore arguments being construable to become validly rested, it enjoined, the, defence, to, ensue the erection, of, a firm evidentiary pedestal, in as much, as, it became incumbent, upon, the defence, to shatter the testification rendered by PW- 1, as, comprised in his examination-in-chief, and, appertaining to a narration, vis-a-vis, his noticing the accused to flee, from, the relevant site of occurrence, after his leaving thereat, the, afore weapon of offence, embodied in Ex. PC1, (b) however during the course of PW-1 being subjected to crossexamination, the afore fact occurring in his examination-inchief, remains un-shred, of its efficacy, (c) and, thereupon the afore narration acquires an aura of immense solemn evidentiary worth. In aftermath a conclusion, becomes generated, vis-a-vis, the defence acquiescing, vis-a-vis, the incriminatory user by the accused, of, Ex. PC1, and, thereupon all the afore non-adherences, by, the Investigating Officer, in as much, as, of his not preparing, the, disclosure statement, of, the accused and thereafter ensuring recovery thereof at the instance of the accused, hence imperatively prior, to, the drawing of Ex. PW-13/A, becoming rendered wholly unnecessary . 10. Further more, for tearing the efficacy, of, the afore made inference, vis-a-vis, the incriminatory user of Ex. PC1, by the accused, it, also became incumbent upon the defence, to put suggestions, to both PW-13, and, to the Investigating Officer, hence encapsulating echoings, vis-a-vis, the afore recovery being concocted and invented, or, from suggestions being meted to the afore, and, holding echoings, vis-a-vis, his signatures on Ex. PW-13/A being unauthentic. However, none of the afore endeavors become re-coursed by the defence, upon, its proceeding to conduct cross-examination(s) respectively of PW-13, and, of the investigating Officer, and, apt sequel therefrom, when becomes combined, with, the afore made inference(s), hence leads to an inevitable sequel, vis-a-vis, the defence abandoning and waiving the defence, vis-a-vis, the purported in-efficacious drawing, of, Ex. PW-13/A, and, higned upon the afore compliable apposite statutory parameters becoming purportedly infracted. 11. PW-13/A, and, higned upon the afore compliable apposite statutory parameters becoming purportedly infracted. 11. Even when PW-13, and, the Investigating Officer were respectively shown the afore weapon of offence, hence, during the course of their respective examinations-in-chief, and, both therebefore identified it to be, the incriminatory weapon of offence, and, when preceding therewith, it became produced in a sealed cloth parcel, whereon, the, embodied thereon seals were intact, and, yet in their respective crossexamination(s), they rather omitted to mete suggestion(s), to, both (a) hence conveying qua the production of Ex. PC1, being tainted, in as much, as, it not becoming connected with PW-13/ A, rather wherethrough it became validly recovered hence at the site of occurrence, and, whereat PW-1 un-erodingly deposes qua its being left thereat, by the accused, after, his fleeing from the relevant site of occurrence. 12. The further effect of the afore drawn inference, is, qua it being hence not necessary, for the Investigating Officer, to, lift finger prints, borne on Ex. PC1, nor, also the affirmative report, of , finger prints expert was enjoined to be adduced in evidence, vis-a-vis, the incriminatory user of Ex. PC1, by the accused. 13. Pw-1 in his examination-in-chief, has proven, the recovery of shoes of the accused, as, made through Ex. PW-1/B. The shoes of the accused became left by him, at the site of occurrence, after his fleeing therefrom, in sequel to his, with the incriminatory user of Ex. PC1, hence, inflicting fatal head injuries, upon, the deceased's head. However, despite PW-1 in his examination-in-chief proving the afore factum, yet, the learned defence counsel, omitted to mete suggestion(s) to him rather suggestive, vis-a-vis, the shoes of the accused, as, recovered through Ex. PW-1/B, rather not belonging to the accused. The consequence thereof, is, the afore made articulation(s), by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief, does withstand an inference vis-a-vis the accused hence carrying the apt incriminatory guilt. 14. Even if the reports of the FSL, do not, firmly pronounce(s), vis-a-vis, all the exhibit(s) sent thereat, hence carrying the blood stains either of accused, and, of deceased nor also when the incriminatory weapon of offence embodied in Ex. PC1, is opined to be carrying blood stains of deceased, yet, thereupon the efficacy of the afore drawn inference, against, the accused does not loose validity or merit. 15. PC1, is opined to be carrying blood stains of deceased, yet, thereupon the efficacy of the afore drawn inference, against, the accused does not loose validity or merit. 15. Importantly all the afore drawn inference(s), to, the considered mind of this Court are rested, upon, an appropriate and sound appraisal of testimonies of the afore prosecution witnesses and also all the afore proven alluded exhibits. 16. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, imposed upon the convict, by the learned trial Court, stands maintained and affirmed. Records be sent down forthwith. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.