JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the appellant-convict against judgment and order dated 31.01.2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court No. 14, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 212 of 2013. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 42 of the Prisoners Act and was ordered to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-. The appellant-convict was also ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for offences under Sections 307 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 42 of the Prisoners Act. 2. The incident pertains to brutal murder at the hands of the appellant within the secured premises of Sabarmati Central Jail with the use of sharp weapon made out of spoon (cutter). The incident was reported by the complainant, who was discharging his duty in Sabarmati Central Jail, Jailor Group 2 on 01.03.2009 when assault took place by the appellant causing serious injuries to the under-trial prisoner Suresh @ Kano Savshibhai Kukadiya and two other inmates. In this connection, FIR came to be registered and upon investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. Charge was framed vide Exh.3, gist of which would read as under: “The accused was convicted in the earlier offence. During his imprisonment as a convict at Sabarmati Central Jail, Ahmedabad, he raised a quarrel with Suresh alias Kano Savshibhai Kukadiya, an Under Trial Prisoner at 13:15 hours in the morning on 01.03.2009 in the open space of Chhota Chakkar Yard No. 1, in connection with recovery of Rs. 25,000/-. The accused caused him injuries on his stomach and neck with a hand made sharp weapon made of steel like metal. At this time, as the other Under Trial Prisoners namely Devendra Laxmansinh Rajput and Shankar Ravjiji Thakor intervened, with an intent to murder them, the accused caused injuries on his stomach with an axe like sharp weapon, because of which Suresh Savshibhai Kukadiya had died.” 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of conviction by submitting that considering the manner in which the incident had taken place and in the incident, one person was killed while two others were injured, the prosecution has not examined two injured witnesses, thereby causing doubt about the incident. Learned Advocate for the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of conviction by submitting that considering the manner in which the incident had taken place and in the incident, one person was killed while two others were injured, the prosecution has not examined two injured witnesses, thereby causing doubt about the incident. 3.1 The next contention raised by learned Advocate for the appellant is that the incident had taken place in the jail premises and there were several witnesses who were also inmates. Though during the course of investigation, their statements were recorded, however, during the course of trial, these inmates have not supported the case of the prosecution and such witnesses have been declared hostile. This casts doubt not only on the investigation but also the prosecution. 3.2 Learned Advocate for the appellant has thereafter argued that use of handmade weapon is an important aspect of trial and the prosecution has not been able to establish discovery of weapon which was allegedly used in commission of crime because panch witnesses have not supported case of the prosecution. 3.3 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that for the purpose of murder, mens rea is an important aspect, which the prosecution has failed to establish. Though the appellant has been charged with the motive of offence, about transaction of Rs. 25,000/- no witness has supported the case of the prosecution to that extent and therefore, in absence of motive, serious charge of murder cannot be established. 3.4 Learned Advocate for the appellant lastly submitted that FSL report is also not supporting case of the prosecution as no bloodstains have been found on the cloths of the appellant, more particularly of the blood group of the deceased or the injured. 4. As against this, learned APP has submitted that considering the nature of incident and the manner in which injuries were caused to the deceased, it indicative of gruesome act and is supported by the medical evidence. 4.1 Learned APP has submitted that during the course of investigation, panchnama was drawn, both of recovery and discovery of the weapon which was used in the offence and that was in running sequence, as the complainant, who was on duty was able to apprehend the appellant along with the weapon itself. Insofar as discovery panchnama is concerned, the same is proved by the Investigation Officer. Insofar as discovery panchnama is concerned, the same is proved by the Investigation Officer. Not only that, two witnesses, who were also posted on duty and had accompanied the panch witnesses and Investigation Officer, have also deposed regarding the manner in which panchnama has taken place. 4.2 Learned APP has submitted that the incident will have to be viewed in light of the special circumstances, i.e. to say the incident had taken place in the jail premises of Sabarmati Central Jail where there is complete prohibition on carrying of weapons, arms and such articles which are likely to be used as weapons. 5. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that PW-1 Punabhai Ravjibhai Palat-Exh.8 is the complainant and was on duty in the jail premises and therefore, presence of this witness is natural. He has deposed that while on duty, he show the appellant rushing from “chhota chakkar” part of the jail premises carrying weapon in his hand which was followed by shouts and chaos. As he was on duty, he immediately apprehended the appellant along with weapon (cutter) which was still having blood on it. This witness has also deposed that when the accused was confronted, he did indicate that he had assaulted another accused-Suresh Savshi Kukadiya, who was lying there in injured condition and had received injuries on neck and stomach and it was reported that when other inmates, viz. Shankar Ravji Thakore and Devendrasinh Laxmansinh Rajput intervened, they were also injured. Accordingly, injured persons were moved to jail hospital for treatment and from there, to Civil Hospital, where Suresh Savshi Kukadiya was declared dead. 6. Insofar as argument advanced by learned Advocate for the appellant that this witness was not the witness to the actual assault, the Court is of the view that the manner in which the incident has been narrated in the deposition of this witness, would lead to indefeasible conclusion that the assault was by the appellant. 6. Insofar as argument advanced by learned Advocate for the appellant that this witness was not the witness to the actual assault, the Court is of the view that the manner in which the incident has been narrated in the deposition of this witness, would lead to indefeasible conclusion that the assault was by the appellant. The Court finds that (i) presence of this witness is natural, (ii) while on duty, this witness saw the appellant rushing out of the place where the offence had taken place, (iii) the appellant was carrying weapon (cutter), (iv) the said cutter had bloodstains, (v) cloths of the appellant were also stained with blood, (vi) the appellant himself disclosed about the incident and (vii) this witness immediately rushed to the place where incident had taken place, which was hardly few meters away and was able to ascertain injuries caused to the deceased and other witnesses. The Court has perused cross-examination of this witness and finds that this witness has stuck to his version as narrated in the evidence-in-chief and has not damaged the case of the prosecution in any manner and therefore, the Court finds this witness to be wholly reliable witness, more so, when this witness has no personal grievance against the appellant, but only as a part of discharge of his duty, was present at the place of offence. 7. The prosecution has thereafter examined PW-2 Motisinh Chanabhai Dabhi, Exh.11, who was also on official duty and in that capacity, is a witness. 8. Similarly, PW-3 Somabhai Naranbhai Makwana, Exh.12 was also on duty in his official capacity and it is in presence of these two witnesses that panchnama was carried out. During the panchnama, the appellant had led to discovery of 5 articles which could be used as weapons and hidden within the jail premises. According to the witness, it is the same place where the appellant, during the panchnama, has stated that the appellant had hidden weapon (cutter) used in the present offence along with other weapons within the jail premises. In the opinion of the Court, authorship of concealment of weapon used in the offence is established and therefore, though the panch witnesses were declared hostile, had to be accepted as in the evidence when such panchnama was exhibited at the behest of the Investigation Officer, PW-16, Exh.58. 9. In the opinion of the Court, authorship of concealment of weapon used in the offence is established and therefore, though the panch witnesses were declared hostile, had to be accepted as in the evidence when such panchnama was exhibited at the behest of the Investigation Officer, PW-16, Exh.58. 9. Insofar as the issue with regard to motive as submitted by learned Advocate for the appellant that there was no motive or transaction of Rs. 25,000/- for the appellant against the deceased, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of Adam @ Javed Siddiqbhai Vohra Sindhi-PW-13, Exh.49. Though this witness has been declared hostile, yet in the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that, it is true that in March 2007, he had gone to Khambhalia Court under surveillance on an adjournment date. At this time, while returning from Court, he got down the bus at Rajkot bus stand under pretext to urinate escaped. It is not true that he had given statement before the Police that he had gone to Rangpur to meet Suresh alias Kano Savshibhai Kukadiya and at that time, he was carrying two country made revolvers loaded with magazines, which were brought from M.P. Out of these two revolvers, he had kept one revolver with himself and Suresh had kept the other. Thereafter, while carrying the said revolver with him, Suresh went to Barvala for committing a robbery. As he was caught and told in the police station that he had given him the said revolver, Rajkot Police caught this witness and sent witness to Sabarmati Jail. As Barvala Police took him from the Jail for investigation, he came to know that Suresh had committed robbery of Rs. 2 lakh in collusion with his friends and my revolver was also seized there. When he returned to Sabarmati Jail after completion of the investigation by Barvala Police, Suresh was also there in Sabarmati Jail. Suresh met me and told that “I and Mahendra alias Taka have committed robbery of Rs. 2 lakhs, in which we had used your revolver, for which he is asking for rupees twenty five thousands from me.” Therefore, he and Suresh went to Mahendra and in the presence of Mahendra, as it was told to waive off the money for using revolver, Mahendra got agitated and all had returned to their respective barracks. 2 lakhs, in which we had used your revolver, for which he is asking for rupees twenty five thousands from me.” Therefore, he and Suresh went to Mahendra and in the presence of Mahendra, as it was told to waive off the money for using revolver, Mahendra got agitated and all had returned to their respective barracks. Thereafter, when Suresh went to Dash Kholi to take something, Mahendra met him there and he threatened him stating as to why he told Adam regarding the amount of revolver. When Suresh came to meet me on Saturday evening, he told me in this regard. 10. In the opinion of the Court, this witness being an inmate and in jail along with the appellant and the deceased, was privy to certain facts which he has deposed in the cross-examination and therefore, to that extent, though this witness is declared hostile, version deposed by this witness is required to be accepted in support of the prosecution. 11. Insofar as ground of bloodstain on the cutter and the cloths, it would be appropriate to refer to the panchnama Exh.66, which was exhibited by the Investigation Officer, which indicates that immediately upon the appellant being apprehended, his cloths and cutter were recovered under the panchnama Exh.66. The panchnama, once being established, corroborates version of the complainant regarding the appellant in a quick sequence of events, after commission of crime, was apprehended in the jail premises itself and at that time, position of his cloths and cutter in his hand, spoke about the incident in itself. 12. The panchnama Exh.68 is a discovery panchnama, which was exhibited by the evidence of the Investigation Officer PW-16, Exh.58. This panchnama led to the discovery of 5 articles which could be potentially used as weapons and were found in hidden condition, which was within the special knowledge of the appellant and therefore, authorship of concealment has come on record by way of this panchnama. Not only that, though the panch witnesses have been declared hostile, this will not affect the veracity of the panchnama in view of the deposition of two other witnesses, viz. PW-2 Motisinh Chanabhai Dabhi, Exh.11 and PW-3 Somabhai Naranbhai Makwana, Exh.12 on account of entire exercise of drawing panchnama in the jail premises, their presence was natural. 13. Not only that, though the panch witnesses have been declared hostile, this will not affect the veracity of the panchnama in view of the deposition of two other witnesses, viz. PW-2 Motisinh Chanabhai Dabhi, Exh.11 and PW-3 Somabhai Naranbhai Makwana, Exh.12 on account of entire exercise of drawing panchnama in the jail premises, their presence was natural. 13. With regard to submission of learned Advocate for the appellant regarding serological report regarding blood sample, it would be pertinent to observe that from Exh.114, which is serological report, bloodstains were found from item Nos. C and D being cloths of the accused. Moreover, the cutter recovered from the appellant was also found with bloodstains. The argument that there is difference in the blood group of the deceased and that found on the cloths of the appellant, the same would fell into insignificance as the cutter which was recovered in the immediate sequence of events, was found with bloodstains of group which was belonging to the deceased. 14. The argument of learned Advocate for the appellant that all the eyewitnesses cited by the prosecution have been declared hostile, the Court finds that the evidence of three witnesses, including the complainant-PW-1, who, according to the Court, is a witness who could be wholly relied upon, is sufficient for bringing home charge under Section 302, etc. 15. In view of the aforesaid findings as also the reasons attributed by the Sessions Court in recording conviction, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 31.01.2017 passed in Sessions Case No. 212 of 2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Court No. 14, Ahmedabad stands confirmed. R&P be sent back to the concerned Trial Court.