JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.
1. Through this appeal the appellant Behari challenges the judgment and order dated 7-10-1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur, in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 1988. convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under : The informant Laxman Prasad PW 1 is the father the deceased Hanesh Kumar. At the time of the incident the informant, the deceased and All Mohammad PW 2 living in village Bisenda within the limits of police station Manpur district Sitapur. At the said time the appellant, who was also originally a resident of village Bisenda, was living in village Majhigawan, hamlet of Rikhauna, police station Talgaon, district Sitapur.
There was enmity between the appellant on one hand and the informant Laxman Prasad and the deceased on the other. On 2-1-1987 the Informant had purchased some land for Rs. 4,500.00 from Banshi alias Masali, the real brother of the appellant. Since the appellant was ploughing the said land, he was irked by Banshi selling it to the informant. Consequently, on the date of the Incident, i.e. on 10-10-1987, relations between the informant and his son Hanesh on one side and appellant on the other were sour.
On 10-10-1987, sometimes in the morning, deceased Hanesh Kumar went to school on a cycle along with a bag. He was putting on a shirt, paijama and slippers. The informant Laxman Prasad on the said date had gone to Ulra market. In the said market. Hanesh Kumar met him. The informant told him to proceed and said that he would be coming after making some purchases. Consequently, Hanesh Kumar proceeded for his village. Thereafter, the Informant, Ali Mohammad PW 2, Shri Ram and Banwari also preceded towards their village. At about 5.30 p.m., when they reached the culvert on the canal situated near Village Ulra, they heard cries. Thereupon, they ran and saw that appellant Behari was assaulting Hanesh Kumar with a knife. Seeing the informant and others the appellant ran away in the northern direction with the knife. The informant and others chased him but could not apprehend him. Thereafter, they returned and saw that Hanesh Kumar was lying dead, his cycle, bag, books and slippers were lying there.
Thereafter, the informant dictated the F.I.R. to one Chandrabhal, who had also reached there, who after scribing it read it over to him. Then the informant affixed his signatures on it and leaving the corpse of Hanesh Kumar in the care of villagers proceeded to the police station Manpur, where he lodged his F.I.R.
3. The evidence of Head Constable Harish Chandra Shukla, PW 4 shows that on 10-10-1987 at 8.30 p.m. while he was posted as Head Constable at police station Manpur, the Informant Laxman Prasad came with a written F. I. R. (Ka-1) which he filed at the police station and on its basis he registered a case vide (Ka-17). His evidence shows that at the said time the Station Officer-in-charge Arun Kumar Gautam, PW 3 was also present at the police station and took over the investigation of the case.
4. The evidence of Arun Kumar Gautam, PW 3 shows :
On 10-10-1987 he was posted as Station Officer-in-Charge of police station Manpur, In his presence, the case was registered and he took over the investigation. He immediately left for the place of the incident with the informant Laxman Prasad. There he recorded the statement of informant Laxman Prasad and prepared the site plan on his pointing out. From place of the incident, he recovered a cycle, bag, books and a pair of slippers under recovery memo (Ka-3). He performed the inquest on the corpse of the deceased; sealed it and sent it for autopsy.
Next morning (morning of 11-10-1987) he again started investigation and interrogated All Mohammad, PW 2 and Sri Ram. In the mean time he received information from an informer that appellant was present at the house of his sister in village Tendua. Consequently, along with All Mohammand and Sri Ram he came to village Tendua where he found the appellant sitting at the door of one Ganga Deen Murao. He arrested him there and interrogated him. During the course of interrogation, the appellant told him that he had concealed the weapon of assault and would get it recovered. Thereafter along with the appellant, AH Mohd and Sri Ram he came to the place of the incident. The appellant led them and took them to a sugarcane field where after removing some earth, he took out a knife. The said knife was recovered and sealed vide recovery memo (Ka-4). He also did some other investigation but since in our view, a reference to it is not necessary for the disposal of this appeal, we are not adverting to it.
After completing the investigation, on 17-10-1987, he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant.
5. Going backwards, the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Hanesh Kumar was conducted on 11-10-1987, at 4.00 p.m. by Dr. Narendra Kumar, PW 5. who found on it the following ante mortem injuries.
(i) Multiple incised wound in an area of 12 cm x 12 cm on left side of back and neck, 2.5 cm above sternal notch size varied from 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep to 0.8 cm x 0.4 cm x muscle deep.
(ii) Multiple incised wound in an area of 18 cm x 13 cm on left side of chest lower, front and upper part of abdomen, 3 cms above umbilicus, Size varied from 4 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep to 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle deep.
(iii) Incised wound 11 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on left fore arm, in front 5 cm above the wrist Joint.
(iv) Incised wound 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on left palm, through and through.
(v) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm bone cut on back of left hand, through and through.
(vi) Multiple incised wound in an area of 15 cm x 10 cm on the back of left scapula. 5.5 cm below shoulder tip. Size varying from 2.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep to 1,5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep.
(vii) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 x bone deep on the back of neck 3.5 cm below occipital protuberance.
(viii) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the back of the right shoulder, 6 cm below shoulder.
On internal examination, the doctor found the following organs cut :--
Lung on the left side; peritoneum; stomach, and liver on the left side.
In the opinion of Dr. Narendra Kumar the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries suffered by him, which injuries as per his deposition in the trial Court were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death and could have led to his death on 10-10-1987 at 5.30 p.m.
6. The case was committed to the Court of sessions in the usual manner where the appellant was charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, to which charge he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
During trial, in all, the prosecution examined six witnesses. Two of them, the informant Laxman Prasad PW 1 and All Mohammad PW 2, were examined as eyewitnesses. The latter also deposed about recovery of knife on the pointing out of the appellant; which circumstance was also deposed to by the appellant, which circumstance was also deposed to by the investigating officer Arun Kumar Gautam, PW 3.
The suggestion given to the eye-witnesses during cross-examination was that the appellant was not responsible for the commission of this crime. The said suggestion was obviously denied by them.
The learned trial Judge believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated in paragraph 1.
Hence this appeal.
7. We have heard counsel for the parties; perused the entire evidence on record, as also the statement of the appellant, recorded under Section" 313, Cr.P.C. and the impugned Judgment and are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in this appeal.
The conviction of the appellant is founded on the ocular account furnished by Laxman Prasad, PW 1 and All Mohammad, PW 2. We not propose analysing It. In paragraph 2. we have set out the prosecution story on the basis of the recitals contained in their examination-in-chief and do not want to burden our judgment by reiterating all details.
8. In short, the evidence of the informant Laxman Prasad PW 1 shows :
On 10-10-1987, sometimes in the morning, his son Hanesh Kumar (the deceased) had gone to school. He had gone to Ulra Market. Hanesh Kumar met him there. Since he had to make some purchase, he asked Hanesh Kumar to proceed on his cycle. Thereafter, he along with Ali Mohammad, PW 2 and two others also left the market for his house. When at about 5-30 p.m. they reached the culvert situated on the canal near village Ulra, they heard cries. On hearing them, they rushed and saw appellant belabouring Hanesh Kumar with a knife. After assaulting Hanesh Kumar, the appellant ran away. Thereafter, they tried to apprehend the appellant but failed to catch him. Then they came back and saw Hanesh Kumar lying dead. His bag, cycle and books were lying by the side of his cropse.
9. We have gone through the evidence of the informant Laxman Prasad and find it implicitly credible.
Firstly, he has explained his presence on the place of the incident.
Secondly, the manner of assault furnished by him is corroborated by medical evidence. He stated that the appellant belaboured his son with a knife and the autopsy surgeon Dr. Narendra Kumar, PW 5 found on the corpse of the deceased three multiple Incised wounds and five Incised wounds, which as per his deposition in the trial Court were attributable to a knife.
Thirdly, we are not prepared to believe that the Informant Laxman Prasad would have excluded the real assailant and falsely Implicated the appellant.
10. Assurance to the account furnished by the Informant is also lent by three other circumstances. Firstly, the recovery of cycle, books and bag by the investigating officer from the place of the Incident within 5-6 hours of the incident taking place. The said recovery, which was made under a recovery memo makes it manifest that Hanesh Kumar was returning from school when he was done to death.
The second circumstances, which lends assurance to the account furnished by the informant, is that the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged within three hours of the incident taking place. We have seen that the incident took place on 10-10-1987 at 5,30 p.m. and F.I.R. was lodged by the informant on the same day at police station Manpura at 8.30 pm.; the distance between the place of the Incident and the said police station being nine Kms.
It is significant to point out that in this FIR all the essential features of the prosecution case, including the weapon in the hands of the appellant, the manner in which he assaulted the deceased, the names of the eye witnesses, the motive, and the time and place of incident have been mentioned. It is pertinent to mention that although Head Constable Harish Chandra Shukla, PW 4, who registered the case on the basis of the F.i.R. was subjected to cross-examination but nothing could be extracted from him, which could belie the prosecution case that the F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 8.30 pm. It is true that he was suggested during cross-examination that the FIR was not lodged at the purported time but later on, but he emphatically denied the suggestion. We have no reason to disbelieve his evidence because there is no material on the basis of which it can be said that the F.I.R. was not lodged at 5.30 pm as alleged by the prosecution.
The third circumstances, which lends weight to the informant's evidence is the circumstance that there was a strong motive for the appellant to have murdered the deceased. In paragraph 2, we have set out the said motive. To repeat, the appellant was irked by the fact that about ten months prior to the incident, i.e. on 1-1-1987, the appellant's brother Banshi had sold the land, which the appellant was cultivating, to the informant for Rs. 4500/-. It Is significant to point out that although the informant was cross-examined on motive but his evidence could not be shaken.
10. For the said reasons, in our view, the evidence of Laxman Prasad, PW 1 inspires confidence and by itself is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant.
11. Apart from the ocular account furnished by the informant Laxman Prasad we also have that furnished by All Mohammad, PW 2. His evidence shows :
On the date and time of the incident, he was also returning from Ulra market along with Laxman Prasad and when they had reached near the culvert situated on the canal near village Ulra, they heard cries and thereafter rushed to the place of the incident, where they saw the appellant assaulting the deceased Hanesh Kumar with a knife. Thereafter, the appellant ran away. They made a bid to catch hold of him but could not.
12. We have gone through the evidence of All Mohammad and in our view, it can be acted upon to lend assurance to the ocular account furnished by Laxman Prasad, PW 1. Like Laxman Prasad, he has also explained his presence at the place of the Incident and like him the manner of assault as furnished by him (All Mohammad) is corroborated by medical evidence.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the evidence of All Mohammad cannot be relied upon for two reasons, firstly, because in his examination-in-chief he did not state that he met Hanesh Kumar in Ulra market and on the converse In his cross-examination stated that before leaving Ulra market he did not meet Hanesh Kumar and secondly, because in his cross-examination he stated that he had told the Investigating Officer that the appellant, had murdered Hanesh Kumar but the said fact was riot mentioned in the inquest report.
14. We have given our anxious consideration to the said criticisms and are constrained to observe that on their basis it can not be concluded that All Mohammad did not see the incident.
So far as the second criticism Is concerned, it should be borne in mind that a perusal of Section 174. Cr.P.C. shows that the object of inquest proceedings is to ascertain the cause of death. In this view of the matter in our opinion the failure of the Investigating Officer to mention in the inquest report that the appellant killed the deceased would not lead to the inference that All Mohammad had not seen the Incident.
So far as the first criticism is concerned, it is true that In his cross-examination Ali Mohammad emphatically stated that in the Ulra market he did not meet Hanesh Kumar but this may be on account of lapse of memory. After all Hanesh Kumar was neither his son nor his relation. He had no special interest in him. At any rate, in our view on account of it, his evidence cannot be thrown out.
15. It is significant to point out that Ali Mohammad appears to be an independent witness and nothing could be scored out from his cross-examination which could detract this fact. Bald suggestion not backed up by any documentary evidence would not make him an inimical witness.
16. At any rate, even if for arguments sake, the evidence of Ali Mohammad is excluded from consideration, the credit worthy ocular account furnished by Laxman Prasad PW 1 is sufficient to sustain the conviction of appellant. It is well settled that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. It is on this truism that the provisions contained in Section 134, Indian Evidence Act which provide that "No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact," are based.
17. We also mention that although apart from the ocular account furnished by Laxman Prasad. PW 1 and Ali Mohammad, PW 2 there is evidence of recovery of blood stained knife on the pointing out by the appellant, which recovery was effected on the next day, i.e. on 11-10-1987 but it would not be prudent to accept it for two reasons, firstly, the evidence of AH Mohammad, PW 2 and Station Incharge Arun Kumar Gautam. PW 3, in whose presence knife was recovered at the instance of the appellant from Inside a sugar cane field, is that the appellant took out the knife after removing some earth. However, we do not think it prudent to accept it because in the recovery memo there is no mention that the appellant removed the earth and recovered the knife. If the story of the appellant's removing the earth is rendered doubtful the recovery of knife would be rendered from a open place. And a recovery of an article from open place is not incriminating evidence. Secondly, there is no report of the chemical examiner to show that blood found on the knife was human blood.
18. At any rate, at the cost of repetition, we would like to point out that the, ocular account furnished by the informant Laxman Prasad. PW 1 by itself is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant. It is true that he is the father of the deceased and an interested witness, but the law only enjoins that the testimony of an interested witness should be examined with caution and not mechanically rejected. We have exercised the said caution and have no reservation in observing that it is worthy of reliance.
19. We would be failing in our fairness if before proceeding to the operative part of the judgment, we do not advert to a submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant to discredit the evidence of Laxman Prasad. He drew our attention to the last paragraph of the cross-examination of Laxman Prasad wherein he admitted that the appellant used knife in a piercing manner. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that absence of any punctured wound on the cropse of the deceased falsifies the account furnished by him and consequently his presence. We have given our consideration to this submission and do not find any merit in it. It is significant to point out that in para 5 of our judgment, we have reproduced the ante mortem injuries suffered by the deceased. Their perusal would show that ante mortem injury No. 2 is a cavity deep multiple incised wound. This injury was obviously caused by a knife, used in a piercing manner. We may also mention that two other injuries, namely injury nos. 4 and 5 were through and through which obviously show that they were caused by a knife, which was used in a piercing manner. In such a factual matrix the submission that there was no punctured injury on the corpse of the deceased and the informant's evidence that knife was used in a piercing manner is rendered unacceptable cannot be accept.
20. In the result, we affirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and dismiss this appeal. The appellant is in Jail and shall remain there to serve out his sentence. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to mention that although it was a difficult brief for the appellant's counsel to argue but he left no stone unturned to convince us that this was a case wherein the appellant deserved the benefit of doubt.