JUDGMENT : SATYEN VAIDYA, J. By way of instant appeal, the appellant has assailed judgment dated 26.09.2018 and sentence order dated 03.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Una, District Una, H.P., whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Sr. No. Sections Sentence imposed on the convict 1. Under Section 302 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/- 2. Under Section 323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 3. Under Section 324 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three year and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 4. Under Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959 for possession of firearm & ammunition. Rigorous imprisonment for three year and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 5. Under Section 27 of the Arms Act 1959 for using the firearm. Rigorous imprisonment for three year and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2.1 The prosecution case rested on the premise that on 21.10.2014, PW-21 Ravi Dutt, telephonically informed Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P. that someone had caused grievous injuries to his mother and she had died as a result thereof. On such information, the police reached village Lamba Sail. 2.2 Police recorded the statement of PW-1 Rama Rani under Section 154 Cr.P.C to the effect that at about 7.30 PM on 21.10.2014, PW-1 was sitting with her mother Veena Devi in the ‘Veranda’ of their house. Her maternal uncle Lakhvir Singh (appellant) came and struck Veena Devi on her head with some rod like object made of iron. Veena Devi was dragged to a place where cattle used to be tethered and there also she was assaulted by the appellant. Appellant also inflicted blows on PW-1. In this assault, PW-1 and her mother had received injuries. 2.3 PW-1 called her brothers PW-21 Ravi Dutt and PW-2 Kharif Singh telephonically. Gurbachan Singh and Anjeev Singh also reached the spot on hearing the commotion. 2.4 The appellant was nurturing a grudge against the family of deceased as his wife had been residing in the house of deceased for some time. 2.3 PW-1 called her brothers PW-21 Ravi Dutt and PW-2 Kharif Singh telephonically. Gurbachan Singh and Anjeev Singh also reached the spot on hearing the commotion. 2.4 The appellant was nurturing a grudge against the family of deceased as his wife had been residing in the house of deceased for some time. 2.5 On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR Ext.PW-23/A was registered at 11.50 p.m. 2.6 Appellant was arrested on 22.10.2014. He made a disclosure statement dated 24.10.2014 Ext.PW-4/A, disclosing therein that on 21.10.2014 he had concealed a country made pistol under a pine tree near “Lamba Sail” School on a link road to “Maidi” and he could get the same recovered. PW-4 Tilak Raj and Ranjeet Singh (not examined) witnessed the recording of aforesaid disclosure statement. 2.7 In pursuance to disclosure statement Ext.PW-4/A, appellant lead the police party and aforesaid witnesses to place “Talliya-da-Tillo” and got recovered a country made pistol from bushes underneath a pine tree. The country made pistol was blood stained and some blood stained hair were also found stuck between the chamber. The fire pin and a cartridge appeared to be stuck in the barrel. Recovery memo Ext.PW-1/B was prepared. The sketch Ext.PW-4/C of recovered pistol was prepared on spot and the recovered weapon was seized. 3. On completion of investigation, police found sufficient evidence against the appellant and filed “Challan” accordingly. Appellant was charged for the commission of offences under Sections 302, 323, 324 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined total 25 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Appellant examined Dr. Indu Bhardwaj as DW-1 in his defence. On conclusion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una(I), held the appellant guilty of commission of offences under Sections 302, 323, 324 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as noticed above. 5. We have heard Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant asserted with vehemence that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and hence the conviction of appellant was unwarranted. Ashwani Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant asserted with vehemence that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and hence the conviction of appellant was unwarranted. He argued that the statement of PW-1 was not worth credence as she had made material improvements from the version given by her in her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C Ext. PW-1/A. 7. To test the above noted contention raised on behalf of appellant, we have gone through the statement of PW-1.She recalled the incident and reiterated the facts by stating that she had two brothers. Their father had expired in the year 2011 and since then, they were residing with their mother Veena Devi (deceased). A few months prior to the incident, her maternal aunt (Mami) Madhu Bala had started living with them due to her estranged relations with her husband Lakhvir Singh (appellant) and for this reason, appellant fostered a grudge against the deceased. On 21.10.2014 at about 7.30 PM she along-with her mother was sitting in the ‘veranda’ of the house. Appellant appeared suddenly and started hurling abuses on the deceased asking her about the whereabouts of his wife and children. The appellant, thereafter, struck the deceased on her head with something which was in the shape of ‘Katta’ (country made pistol). The deceased was dragged by appellant towards cow shed, where also, she was assaulted on the head and other parts of body with ‘Katta’. PW-1 rushed to rescue her mother, but she was also hit on head and right arm with ‘Katta’. The deceased started bleeding and fell unconscious. Their dog leapt on the appellant and the appellant ran away. PW-1 also received injuries on her head and right arm, besides the deceased who had also received injuries on her head and right arm. PW-3 Anjeev Singh and Gurbachan Singh (not examined) had reached the spot. PW-1, thereafter, telephonically informed her brothers PW-2 Kharif Singh and PW-21 Ravi Dutt. After reaching the spot, PW-21 Ravi Dutt informed the police. Police reached the spot and recorded her statement Ext.PW-1/A. Spot photographs were clicked. Police recovered two cartridges, a knife and hood of jacket from the spot. The articles so recovered were seized and sealed. PW-1, thereafter, telephonically informed her brothers PW-2 Kharif Singh and PW-21 Ravi Dutt. After reaching the spot, PW-21 Ravi Dutt informed the police. Police reached the spot and recorded her statement Ext.PW-1/A. Spot photographs were clicked. Police recovered two cartridges, a knife and hood of jacket from the spot. The articles so recovered were seized and sealed. Police also obtained controlled sample of soil from the spot. On 24.10.2014 appellant while in custody of police and in presence of PW-4 Tilak Raj and Ranjeet Singh had got recovered a country made pistol from the place named “Talliya-da-Tillo” from bushes underneath the pine tree. The ‘Katta’ had human hair entangled in its chamber and was also stained with blood. Sketch of the ‘Katta’ was prepared by the police. The recovered weapon was then seized and sealed. She had further identified the recovered ‘Katta’ to be the same with which appellant had caused injuries on the deceased and to PW-1. Appellant was having strained relations with his wife Madhu Bala. Madhu Bala had reported the matter to police against her husband and whenever she was harassed, she used to come and reside along-with her children with the family of deceased. However, Madhu Bala had left their house with her children and her whereabouts were not known. The appellant somehow assumed that the deceased had sent his wife somewhere. The appellant had been visiting deceased off and on to inquire about his wife and children. In cross-examination, PW-1 admitted certain facts as under: (i) She was adopted daughter of deceased Veena Devi; (ii) There were houses close to her house in the village; (iii) Deceased Veena Devi used to follow supernatural practices and many people, even from the adjoining States used to visit her for finding solution to their problems. (iv) People from Punjab etc. used to come and stay with them during ‘Hola Mohalla’ festival. PW-1 however, denied that people visited her mother on account of practice of sorcery. She also denied that her mother used to visit Punjab in the company of such persons for 15-20 days. It was denied that for this reason the brothers of PW-1 were annoyed with deceased. It was further denied that even husband of deceased had attempted to commit suicide due to the aforesaid reasons. She also denied that her mother used to visit Punjab in the company of such persons for 15-20 days. It was denied that for this reason the brothers of PW-1 were annoyed with deceased. It was further denied that even husband of deceased had attempted to commit suicide due to the aforesaid reasons. PW-1 specifically denied that neighbours in the village were not on talking terms with them and quarrel used to take place with deceased on account of her habit of practicing sorcery. She also denied the suggestion that her mother was killed by some unknown persons from Punjab who were nurturing ill will against her. 8. On perusal of the statement of Rama Rani it could be noticed that defence confronted her with her previous statement Ext. PW-1/A on following points which were not found recorded therein: (i) that appellant had hurled abuses at the deceased, (ii) their pet dog had attacked the appellant and; (iii) the appellant had run towards “katcha” road. 9. The facts not recorded in Ext.PW-1/A with which PW-1 was confronted were regarding hurling of abuses on the deceased by the appellant, the dog having attacked him and the appellant having run towards ‘kutcha’ path. We do not find these improvements to be of much help to the case of the appellant. Admittedly, at the time of making statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., the mental state of PW-1 would not be that subtle as at the time of recording of her statement before the Court by which time, she had recovered from the shock. The factum of appellant having abused the deceased, having been attacked by the dog or having run towards ‘kutcha’ path after the incident would be easily omitted by a person, who had witnessed a ghastly attack on her mother and herself immediately before making the statement to the police. These facts otherwise were not very material for proving the allegations against appellant. Thus, the facts so stated before court and omitted in previous statement of PW-1, in our considered view, are not so material as to have effect on the outcome of the case. 10. These facts otherwise were not very material for proving the allegations against appellant. Thus, the facts so stated before court and omitted in previous statement of PW-1, in our considered view, are not so material as to have effect on the outcome of the case. 10. Learned counsel for appellant made an effort to draw our attention towards another improvement made by PW-1 in her statement before the Court viz naming the weapon of offence as “katta” in place of object like iron rod, which according to learned counsel was a material fact for determination of charge against appellant. The contention so raised is without merit as the previous statement of a witness can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and corroboration and the same cannot be achieved without confronting the witness with his/her previous statement, which in the case in hand is found missing. PW-1 was not confronted by defence on this count and hence no benefit can be derived by appellant. 11. Another contention raised on behalf of appellant was that PW-2 Ravi Dutt contradicted the version of Rama Rani in material particulars and thus demolished prosecution story. 12. PW-21 in his examination-in-chief stated that on 21.10.2014 at about 7.30 PM, he received a phone call from PW-1 Rama Rani disclosing assault being made on her by the appellant and that as a result thereof, she was lying unconscious. He reached home at about 8.00 PM. His uncle Gurbachan Singh and Panchayat Secretary Anjeev Singh, PW-3 were already present there. His brother Kharif Singh had also arrived. PW-1 Rama Rani narrated the entire story. The said narration was substantially the same as disclosed by PW-1 in her deposition before the court. PW-21 admitted having informed the police from his mobile phone. The knife and two cartridges were stated by him to be found lying near the dead body. 13. While being cross-examined PW-21 admitted that at the time of informing the police he had not named the appellant. As per this witness, police reached there and thereafter went to the house of his uncle Mohan Lal. He admitted that he had suspected his uncle Mohan Lal to have given beating to his mother and for this reason only, police has visited the house of Mohan Lal. Mohan Lal was not found and people had advised not to suspect Mohan Lal as he was not at home. He admitted that he had suspected his uncle Mohan Lal to have given beating to his mother and for this reason only, police has visited the house of Mohan Lal. Mohan Lal was not found and people had advised not to suspect Mohan Lal as he was not at home. It was also admitted that Mohan Lal and deceased had filed complaints against each other. He further admitted that after return from the house of Mohan Lal, police had again asked him about the suspect. On this, PW-21 had clarified that his sister PW-1 Rama Rani had disclosed the name of appellant to be the assailant. 14. The appellant again cannot draw any benefit from the above noted version of PW-21.What had been stated by this witness about suspecting Mohan Lal in the first instance, was his own impression. He had not stated that the same was the impression of all others including PW-1. He maintained that PW-1 had disclosed the appellant to be the assailant. The fact remains that PW-21 was not the eye witness to the incident. The incident was witnessed only by PW-1. There was no contradiction in the statements of PW-1 and PW-21 in respect of facts that PW-21 was telephonically informed by PW-1 regarding the assault having been made on their mother by the appellant and on his reaching home, he had informed the police. Merely because PW-21 had entertained some impression individually cannot be considered sufficient to doubt the eye witness count given by PW-1. Reference in this regard can be made to the statement of PW-2, another son of deceased, who supported the prosecution case and he was not confronted with the same story in respect of suspecting Mohan Lal as was done with PW-1. Noticeably, the different stances maintained by the appellant while cross-examining the prosecution witness speaks for itself. 15. It was also contended for appellant that the factum of non-association of any witness from the same village made the prosecution case highly doubtful. As per appellant, the best evidence was withheld. This argument also deserves to be rejected as there was nothing on record to discredit the version of PW-1 and no convincing material could be pointed out to attribute to her any strong motive for false implication of appellant. 16. As per appellant, the best evidence was withheld. This argument also deserves to be rejected as there was nothing on record to discredit the version of PW-1 and no convincing material could be pointed out to attribute to her any strong motive for false implication of appellant. 16. Further, the version of PW-1 against the appellant found strong corroboration from the discovery of weapon of offence at the instance of appellant, which is relevant under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The discovery of said fact has been duly proved by PW-4 Tilak Ram. His version could not be impeached despite detailed cross-examination. 17. The scientific evidence collected by the investigating agency further proved that DNA profile from the incriminating material found on the katta (country made pistol) matched completely with the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of deceased Veena Devi. No plausible explanation has come forward from the side of appellant on this material piece of evidence save and except that evidence was planted. In absence of any material to doubt the prosecution evidence, the broad argument as to planting of evidence cannot be sustained. 18. The appellant has also failed to discredit the prosecution version by probabilising his defence of false implication. No support could be drawn by the defence from the material on record. On the contrary, the fact that the appellant nurtured some grouse with his sister can also be seen as a double-edged weapon and his motive to kill his sister. 19. No other point has been raised before us on behalf of the appellant. 20. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.