A. No. 512/2000 Page 1 of 46PW-3 H.C Chander Bhan while on patrolling duty at the Chabutra of Gurudwara Bangla Sahib received information from a devotee that a quarrel had taken place in the NDMC Park.The criminal law machinery in this case was set in motion by DD No. 14A (Ex. PW 18/A).On 14.06.1995, ASI Dharam Singh (PW-18) was on emergency duty from 8 a.m to 8 p.m at P.S Parliament Street.Pursuant to the receipt of the aforesaid information he along with Constable Bhagat Ram (PW-13) reached at the spot i.e Jai Singh Road.At the spot one PCR Van, H.C Chander Bhan (PW-3), Constable Nirmal Singh, injured Shera and the appellant Mannu met him.Subsequently, ASI Dharam Singh (PW-18) took the injured in the PCR Van to R.M.L Hospital where the doctor declared the injured as brought dead.Thereafter, he along with the Addl.S.H.O reached at the spot where H.C. Chander Bhan handed over to him a kirpan along with the cover.The kirpan and cover of the kirpan were recovered at the spot and was sealed by A.S.I Dharam Singh.Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to the S.H.O, Gurnam Singh Randhawa.The accused was detained at the spot and he recorded the statement of HC Chander bhan.The rukka was sent for registration of the case.The photos of the scene of occurrence were taken.The I.O. inspected the spot, site plan was prepared, 'Tat' which was lying at the spot in the park was sealed in a parcel, along with the sample soil was also taken into possession.The old turban lying at the spot was taken into custody.Some blood was lying at the spot.He also took sample of concrete from the spot.The accused mannu who was detained at the spot was sent for medical examination by ASI Dharam Singh.He recorded the statement of eye witness Prakash Chander.He recorded the statement of other witnesses.After his examination, the accused was brought back to the NDMC park and was arrested.However, names of none of these persons including ASI Dharam Singh who was the senior most official finds mention in the MLC.PW-7 Prakash Chander also claims that the deceased Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 4 of 46 was well- known to him and he knew the name of the deceased.Further ASI Dharam Singh (PW-18) who claims to have accompanied the deceased to the hospital has stated in his statement that the deceased informed him that his name was Shera, yet no one informed the doctor in the hospital.A. No. 512/2000 Page 4 of 46d) In the MLC it is recorded that an "unknown" person had been brought dead by Constable Jai Ram Singh of PCR Van with the alleged history of being found unconscious on Jai Singh Road.The two police officials (PW-13 and PW-18) who were travelling in the same PCR Van with the deceased to the hospital gave absolutely two different versions in their respective statements.g) As per the prosecution's version, no call was received by the PCR van, still it failed to establish how it reached at the spot.This is clear from the evidence on record including the evidence of PW-3, H.C Chander Bhan who stated that he did not send any intimation to the Police Station nor made any call to the PCR.h) That the deceased did not reveal the name of the accused to PW-3 H.C Chander Bhan nor made any statement regarding the incident although he had ample time and opportunity to do so.i) When a suggestion was put to PW-3 H.C Chander Bhan in his cross examination that if the accused made any attempt to run away on seeing H.C Chander Bhan, because as per the normal human conduct, the appellant if he was actually involved in the crime, could not have gathered the courage Crl.With the legal dicta as discussed in the foregoing paras, let us now examine as to whether the counsel for the appellant succeeds in throwing any serious doubts on the prosecution case particularly to discredit or impeach the testimonies of the two eye witnesses i.e. HC Chander Bhan (PW-3) and Prakash Chander (PW-7).As per the deposition of Prakash Chander (PW-7), he himself was serving as a sevadar in Gurudwara Bangla Saheb and he very well knew Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 17 of 46 both the accused and the victim.At the time of the incident, at 10.30 PM on 14th June 1995, Prakash Chander (PW-7) was also lying in the same NDMC Park along with a few others when he witnessed the quarrel to have taken place between the accused and the victim over a gunny bag.During the quarrel, Prakash Chander (PW-7) saw the accused snatching the gunny bag from the victim and thereafter the victim running towards the shop.The accused then caught him near a tree and took out a kripan from the possession of the victim and started hitting him with the kripan while sitting on him.He could not see how many blows were given by the accused to the victim because accused sat with his back facing towards him.He also saw PW-3 HC Chander Bhan to have reached at the spot who took both the accused and the victim from the park towards the road behind the toilet.In his cross-examination, he stated that he was working as sevadar in the Gurudwara Bangla Saheb for the last five years.He also deposed that at the time of the incident, 5-6 persons were sleeping in the park and after the incident, seeing the police these persons went away.He also deposed that he did not get up from his place as he was under the apprehension of getting stabbed if he would interfere.He also deposed that at the time of the incident, the accused was only wearing an underwear (kachha) and he did not see any blood stains on his Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 18 of 46 body.He also deposed that he did not see any blood stains on the clothes of PW-3 HC Chander Bhan.He also deposed that he could only see from one eye.He also deposed that when HC Chander Bhan took the victim Shera towards the road, he could see that the victim was alive.The presence of PW-7 also cannot be disputed because of the fact that his statement was recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. while he was available at the spot and he was also witness to the seizure memo of samples of the soil (Ex.A. No. 512/2000 Page 19 of 46 having come to know about some altercation to have taken place in the NDMC Park.After he had reached the spot, he saw that there was a clean shaven person and a Sardar who were grappling with each other.He also saw that a clean shaven person pinned down the sardar on the ground .He further saw that the clean shaven person was having a small kripan in his right hand and was inflicting blows with the kirpan on the sardar who was lying on the ground.He saw that he was being hit on the chest with the kirpan.This witness tried to snatch the kirpan from the hand of clean shaven person and in that process the clean shaven person had rubbed and cleaned the blood from the kirpan.This witness had overpowered both the persons and took both of them out of the park towards the road.The injured person told his name as Shera to this witness while blood was oozing out from his body.The victim sat near the police quarters on Jai Singh road and fell down as he was suffering from pain.In the meantime another constable Nirmal Singh had reached there and after handing over both the said persons to the said constable, PW-7 started moving towards Ashok Road in search of vehicle to remove the injured to the hospital.But in the meanwhile a PCR Van had reached there.The PCR officials alongwith ASI Dharam Singh and Bhagat Ram had removed the injured to the hospital while PW-3 HC Chander Bhan and Constable Nirmal Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 20 of 46 Singh remained at the spot alongwith the accused.After sometime SHO of Police Station Parliament Street, ASI Dharam Singh and SI also reached at the spot and they were informed that the injured Shera had expired.PW-3/B, and also bears his signatures.PW-3 is also the witness to the seizure and recovery of the gunny bag (Taat), pagri, and blood stained earth sample which were lifted from the spot by the police and sample of the soil and personal search memo of the accused.The wound is present 102 cm above left heel wound is muscle deep.d. Injury No.2 is piercing through left lung and anterior wall of the heart.The post mortem Report further states that it was the injury No.2 that pierced the left lung due to which the left lung had collapsed.KAILASH GAMBHIR, JBy this appeal filed under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2000 and order on sentence dated 30.05.2000 whereby the Appellant - Mannu was convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, further to pay fine of Rs.10000 and in case of default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.The facts germane to the case of the prosecution are that - Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 1 of 46His personal search was taken and after interrogation of Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 2 of 46 the accused, they went back to the police station.The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted and the exhibits were sent for analysis and after completion of the investigation challan was filed.A. No. 512/2000 Page 2 of 46To prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses.The State was led by Mr. Sunil Sharma, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor.Addressing arguments on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate categorised her submissions under various heads, the same are outlined as under:-I. Gaps, infirmities, contradictions and lacunae in the prosecution:As per the counsel for the appellant the genesis of the prosecution case is shrouded in mystery and the two eye-witnesses have been introduced to make out a semblance of a case.The infirmities, gaps and Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 3 of 46 contradictions which were pointed out by the counsel for the appellant are detailed as under:Therefore, there is nothing substantive on record to prove the presence of Constable Jai Ram Singh at the spot.c) As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased was brought to the hospital by the PCR officials, ASI Dharam Singh (PW-18) and Ct Bhagat Ram (PW-13).e) As per the prosecution case, the place of occurrence was NDMC Park but the DD Entry, MLC and the Post Mortem Report, all show that the deceased was found unconscious on Jai Singh Road which clearly demonstrate that the scene of occurrence was Jai Singh Road, Gurudwara Bangla Sahib and not NDMC Park.A. No. 512/2000 Page 5 of 46f) PW-5, Dr Sanjeev Tandon deposed that Injury No.2 (stab wound) had pierced the left lung and the anterior wall of the heart, yet the deceased was able to walk from the Park to Jai Singh Road which according to the prosecution was at a distance of 230 mtrs .A. No. 512/2000 Page 6 of 46 of continuing to fight and stab the deceased in front of a police officer.A. No. 512/2000 Page 6 of 46j) The MLC of the accused show that it was recorded at 3:30 a.m. however, the incident allegedly took place at 10:45 p.m. Evidence on record suggests that till 3:15 a.m. the accused remained on the spot.The SHO has himself said that Mannu, the accused herein was taken to the hospital at 3:15 a.m. Thus, the medical examination of the accused was conducted after 4.5 hours when he could have been sent immediately with the injured and this fact further casts a doubt on the prosecution case.k) The exhibits were sent to CFSL after more than 20 days of the incident.Even the Rukka was sent to the Police Station at 12:50 a.m., however the incident occurred at 10.45 p.m. Thus the counsel urged that the case of the prosecution suffers from proven improbabilities, infirmities and contradictions and does not inspire confidence.The story of the prosecution is that PW-3 H.C Chander Bhan while on patrolling duty at the Chabutra of Gurudwara Bangla Sahib received Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 7 of 46 information from a devotee that a quarrel took place in the NDMC Park.Counsel submitted that this "devotee" has not been named or produced in the witness box.Hence the Hon'ble Court should draw adverse inference against the prosecution for non- examination of material witnesses in the case.A. No. 512/2000 Page 7 of 46It is a settled law that where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness who though available but was not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the Hon'ble Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.The statement and evidence of the alleged eye- witness PW-7 Prakash Chander lacks credence and reliability and his presence at the spot is also highly doubtful.A reading of his testimony and the testimony of H.C Chander Bhan clearly show that they were not present at the place of occurrence.The name of Prakash Chander (PW-7) does not find mention in the Rukka and the FIR.According to PW-7 about a month prior to the incident there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased in which the accused sustained head injuries.This is entirely Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 8 of 46 false as the material/evidence on record show that the quarrel took place between one Deepak tea stall owner and the accused a month prior and not between the accused and the deceased "Shera".A. No. 512/2000 Page 8 of 46The owner of Deepak Tea Stall could have thrown some light on the incident and was a material witness but was conveniently discarded from being examined by the prosecution.Furthermore, PW-7 stated in his cross examination that in the alleged quarrel between the accused and the deceased had caused head injury to the accused with the help of a crutch of another person.However, his statement is patently false as the MLC of the accused shows that there was no such head injury.In respect of PW-7 Prakash Chander it is also very surprising that at 10:45 p.m he could see the incident very minutely in the darkness of the Park when he himself is blind from one eye.It is also very intriguing that PW-7 as per his deposition was always present whenever the accused was being beaten up or when he Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 9 of 46 was supposed to beat anyone.He seems to be an omnipresent witness in the present case.A. No. 512/2000 Page 9 of 46That the glaring discrepancies would be noticed in the testimonies of PW-3 H.C Chander Bhan and PW-7 Prakash Chander with regard to the narration of the incident which affect the very core of the prosecution case.Its non-corroboration by other witnesses or evidence makes it a weak piece of evidence.In these circumstances the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgements is that when the prosecution relies upon the testimony of a sole eye-witness, then such evidence has to be wholly reliable and trustworthy and if the evidence of the sole eye- witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation for the conviction of the accused.Counsel in this regard referred to the following judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:(i) (2012)4 SCC 722: Govindaraju alias Govinda vs State(ii) (2005) 10 SCC 196: Pohlu vs State Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 10 of 46 III.Medical evidence and other evidence in support:A. No. 512/2000 Page 10 of 46The whole story about the accused having wiped the blood on the kirpan with his hands is a fabricated one.This is corroborated by the CFSL Report which says that no blood was found on the kirpan.In similar circumstances i.e. when no blood was found on the weapon of offence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court have set aside the conviction of the Appellant.Reference in this regard was placed on the following judgements:(ii) ILR Delhi Series 1986 Volume II: Imtiaz Ahmed vs StateThe prosecution has also been unable to produce the blood stained clothes of the accused.A version has been put forth that the accused was in his undergarments at that point of time.The undergarment (Kachha) has also not been produced.If the accused was actually sitting on the chest of the deceased and giving kirpan blows, the undergarment would have been soaked with blood.The undergarment (Kachha) was admittedly not sent to CFSL.That PW-3 HC Chander Bhan stated that when he took the deceased from the Park to the road, the deceased was leaning upon him.Even PW-7 Prakash Chander stated the same.However, even though the Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 11 of 46 deceased was bleeding profusely, surprisingly H.C Chander Bhan's clothes not smeared in any blood stains casts a doubt on the prosecution story.Thus it is manifest that PW-3 H.C Chander Bhan does not seem to be a witness to the crime at all and has reached there only after everything was over.To support this argument counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:A. No. 512/2000 Page 11 of 46(ii) ILR Delhi Series 1986 Volume II: Imtiaz Ahmed vs State(iii) 52 (1993) DLT 351: Rishi Pal & Ors vs State IV No motiveCounsel also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for the crime.According to the prosecution the dispute this time was over a gunny bag.It is inconceivable that over a small piece of 'tat' and that too after the accused had already snatched it from the deceased as per the testimony of PW-7, he ran after the deceased to kill him.V Conversion of sentence from 302 IPC to 304 (I) or (II)Lastly, it was submitted by the Learned Counsel that even if the Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 12 of 46i. Admittedly there was a sudden fight which allegedly happened between the Accused and the Deceased over a piece of gunny bag.There was no pre-meditation: The accused was not carrying any weapon with him and is alleged to have taken the kirpan of the deceased to stab him.The accused made no attempt to run away from the spot.There are no other criminal cases pending against the accused in any other Court Counsel submitted that reference in this regard could be made to the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:(i) (2009)15 SCC 635: Gurmukh Singh vs State of Haryana Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 13 of 46A. No. 512/2000 Page 13 of 46(ii)JT 2013(12) SC 28: Chandera @ Chandera Ram vs State of Chhattisgarh The counsel thus urged and prayed for the discharge of the Appellant/accused to meet the interests of justice.Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently refuted the said submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the case of the appellant is an open and shut case based on the testimony of two eye witnesses and both the testimonies remained coherent, cogent and clinching throughout.They are also duly supported by the medical and forensic evidence leaving no space for any doubts.Learned APP also submitted that the learned trial court went into each and every aspect of the material placed on record by the prosecution and the defence raised by the accused at the time of recording of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the reasoning given by the learned trial court to convict and sentence the appellant for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.Learned APP thus strongly urged that the appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of any merit and the same may be dismissed.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 14 of 46The incident took place near a devout place of worship, known for its purity and religious beliefs, Gurudwara Bangla Sahib.Gurudwara Bangla Saheb is the most prominent Sikh Gurudwara and is known for its association of 8th Sikh Guru - Guru Harkishan Singh.The victim in the present case was a sevadar at the Gurudwara Bangla Sahib.God creates, we destroy, how true that is in our society that for some psychological satisfaction, a human develops a tendency, an urge, fear or anxiety to rip off a person's life in seconds and at that spur even forgets the outcome that he would have to suffer at the hands of law, and that there can be no escape from the clutches of law.The incident took place in the NDMC maintained park which adjoins the said Gurudwara.As per the case of the prosecution, the tussle between the accused and the victim was over a piece of gunny bag (taat) which was given by the Management of the Gurudwara to the sewadars for sleeping purpose.The night of 14th June 1995, was the peak of summers and probably due to this reason, the accused was only wearing an underwear and there was no other cloth on his body.HC Chander Bhan (PW-3) and Prakash Chander Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 16 of 46 merely based on few infirmities.A. No. 512/2000 Page 16 of 46PW-3/E) collected from the spot, seizure memo of Pagri of the deceased (Ex.PW- 3/f), seizure memo of the old gunny bag (taat) and personal search memo of the accused proved on record as Ex.PW-3/H. Despite a lengthy cross- examination of this witness, we do not find that the defence could succeed to create any dent to disbelieve his testimony.Many questions were put to him to dispute his presence and even with regard to his working as a sevadar in the Gurudwara Bangla Saheb but nothing could be elicited by the defence to disbelieve his presence at the spot of the crime or even his being a sevadar in the said Gurudwara Bangla Saheb.A. No. 512/2000 Page 17 of 46ASI Dharam Singh had recorded the statement of PW-3 Chander Bhan which carried the endorsement of ASI Dharam Singh and then sent the rukka (Ex.PW-18/B) to the Police Station for registration of the FIR.He further deposed that he had handed over kripan to ASI Dharam Singh and sketch of the Kirpan was drawn by ASI Dharam Singh which is proved on record as Ex.He is also a witness to the sketch of the cover of kirpan.The defence could not succeed to shatter his evidence despite his grueling cross-examination.The testimonies of these two eye witnesses find corroboration in the testimonies of PW-13 Bhagat Ram, PW-18 ASI Dharam Singh and PW-16 - Inspector B.S. Rana and PW-19 Inspector Gurnam Singh.The ocular evidence of this witness finds corroboration by medical evidence and forensic evidence proved on record by the prosecution.A. No. 512/2000 Page 19 of 46A. No. 512/2000 Page 20 of 46A. No. 512/2000 Page 21 of 46Learned counsel for the appellant made a desperate but vain attempt to find fault with the testimonies of prosecution witnesses especially the two eye witnesses but nothing substantial was pointed out to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.To say that no DD entry was produced to show that PW-3 HC Chander Bhan was on patrolling duty at Gurudwara Bangla Saheb; the names of PCR officials were not found mentioned in the MLC of the deceased; failure of ASI Dharam Singh (PW-18) to inform the name of the deceased to the doctor of the hospital; PW-18 ASI Dharam Singh, Constable Bhagat Ram giving two different versions about the disclosure/non-disclosure of his names by the victim - Shera while he was being taken to the hospital in the PCR Van; variations with regard to the place of occurrence; how the deceased received fatal injury on the road which was at a distance of 230 sq. yds.and DD entry was recorded after a gap of 15 minutes from the time of incident; PCR Van reaching at the spot without receipt of any information about the incident; non-disclosure of the name of the accused by the deceased to HC Chander Bhan although he had ample time to disclose the same; ample time for the accused to run away if he had actually committed the crime; delayed medical assistance to the accused after a gap of 4-5 hours; sending of exhibits to CFSL after more than 20 days of the incident; are Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 22 of 46 only the peripheral aspects of the case but in no manner the same can corrode the credibility of the prosecution case.As already stated above, Gurudwara Bangla Saheb is a prominent place of worship and thousands of people almost round the clock pay visit to the gurudwara to seek blessings and there is nothing unusual that PW-3 Chander Bhan was on a patrolling duty in the vicinity of the said gurudwara.We also do not find anything unusual that the PCR had reached at the Jai Singh road at its own where the victim and the accused were brought by PW-3 - HC Chander Bhan.The non disclosure of the name of Shera by PW-18 to the doctor, who attended the deceased also cannot be held fatal to throw over broad the case of the prosecution which is otherwise found reliable, credible and trustworthy.A. No. 512/2000 Page 22 of 46So far as the variation with regard to the place of occurrence as pointed out by counsel for the appellant is concerned, the argument merits outright rejection as indisputably the victim and the accused were brought to the Jai Singh Road from the spot of the crime by HC Chander Bhan(PW-3) and there is nothing wrong if the DD entry and the postmortem entry records the name of the place where the victim was found unconscious.This fact, will however not change the place of actual Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 23 of 46 occurrence of the site which will remain the NDMC Park adjoining the Gurudwara Bangla Saheb.A. No. 512/2000 Page 23 of 46So far the contention of counsel for the appellant that the accused did not make any attempt to run away, had he been actually involved in the crime or the fact that he would not have the courage to continuously stab the victim in front of police officer, also do not cut much ice as HC Chander Bhan(PW-3) had over powered the accused and it is not the version of HC Chander Bhan(PW-3) that the accused kept on inflicting blows after he had seen him.As per his testimony, he saw the accused giving kirpan blows to the sardar who was lying on the ground and then he tried to intervene to snatch the kirpan from his hand.The blows therefore, were already inflicted by the accused on the victim before the intervention of HC Chander Bhan.The other discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant are also totally inconsequential being of very trivial and insignificant nature.Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.Dealing with the next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution neither recorded the statement of Constable Jai Ram Singh nor examined him as a witness although he was the only person whose name was found to be mentioned in the MLC and would have been the best person to depose about the incident and Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 27 of 46 similarly, non examination of Head Constable Sucheta, who went to inform the PCR and likewise non-examination of the 'devotee' who had informed HC Chander Bhan(PW-3) about the quarrel to have taken place in the NDMC Park.Undoubtedly, the name of constable Jai Ram Singh does find mention in the MLC of the victim Shera and he was one of the police official who was present in the PCR.HC Chander Bhan (PW-3) in his cross-examination has referred to the person - Constable Jai Ram Singh in the PCR van.There were other police officials also in the PCR Van including the driver of the PCR Van.So far as the non-examination of the devotee is concerned, PW-3 HC Chander Bhan did not disclose the name of the devotee and in his cross- Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 28 of 46 examination he categorically stated that he did not note down the name of the person who had informed about the quarrel in the NDMC Park as many people had passed through that area to move towards the Gurudwara side at that time.A. No. 512/2000 Page 27 of 46A. No. 512/2000 Page 28 of 46The evidence is to be weighed and not counted.The general rule is that it is not the numerical strength of witnesses but the inherent strength of any witness which is the guiding factor for the prosecution to prove its case, therefore, it is not that particular number of witnesses in a case will be required to prove any particular fact if such a fact can be proved by any single credible witness.We thus, do not find any force in the contention raised by counsel for the appellant to disbelieve the prosecution version due to non examination of the said three witnesses.The next contention raised by counsel for the appellant was that there was no blood found on the weapon of offence and therefore, the story of the prosecution cannot be believed.PW-3 - HC Chander Bhan was very categorical in stating in his examination in chief that the accused person rubbed and cleaned the blade of the kirpan at the time when he tried to snatch the kirpan from his hand.When such coherent Crl.He further clarified that his clothes did not get any bloodstains from the injured Shera while he was talking to him and proceeding towards the road.We find no reason to disbelieve the clarification given by him that his clothes did not get any blood stains from the injured Shera.Even otherwise, the statement of the witness is to be read as a whole and once the court finds no reason to disbelieve his presence at the spot and his narration of what he had seen in front of his eyes is credible, we are not convinced to accept that his presence can be disbelieved because his clothes were free from bloodstains of the deceased.We also cannot loose sight of the fact that the presence of PW-3 HC Chander Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 30 of 46 Bhan at the spot of crime is duly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses mainly PW-7 Prakash Chander, SHO, and others.Even the FIR of the case was registered on the statement of PW-3 HC Chander Bhan.A. No. 512/2000 Page 29 of 46A. No. 512/2000 Page 30 of 46PW-5/B wherein, he stated that the weapon has slightly curved in the front portion and therefore, the injuries caused on the body of the victim may be inflicted from a slightly curved weapon.The said subsequent opinion given by PW-5 - Dr. Sanjiv Tandon, Senior Head of Department of Forensic and Medical, Lady Harding Medical College stating that the weapon examined by him was slightly curved is also in consonance with the sketch of the weapon of offence proved on record as Ex.PW-3/B which clearly shows that the kirpan was a curved one in the front portion.A. No. 512/2000 Page 31 of 46 not find any force in the aforesaid contention raised by counsel for the appellant.A. No. 512/2000 Page 31 of 46Learned counsel for the appellant also raised a contention that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of the accused to commit the said crime.Motive assumes importance in cases wholly depending upon the circumstantial evidence and where ocular evidence is very clear and convincing and the role of accused persons in the crime can be clearly established, the failure to prove motive for the crime is hardly of any consequence.(Ref: Yunis @ Kariya etc. Vs.A. No. 512/2000 Page 32 of 46 result in demolishing the otherwise clear and convincing evidence of the prosecution.A. No. 512/2000 Page 32 of 46The following anti mortem injuries were received by the deceased as per the post mortem report:a. Abrasion of 3X2 cm present on the right lateral centhus of eye b. Stab wound of 1.5X0.5 cm present on left side of the chest, 5 cm below left nipple & 124 cm above left heel left feet.The Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 33 of 46 wound is directed medically upward having fine border and sharp edges.A. No. 512/2000 Page 33 of 46c. Wound of 1.6 cm, 0.5 cm above left illiaccrest in mid axillary lone.The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 44 of 46 special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention...A. No. 512/2000 Page 44 of 46A. No. 512/2000 Page 45 of 46 appellant is modified from life imprisonment to the rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine as already imposed by the learned trial court.A. No. 512/2000 Page 45 of 46The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Relevant sections: Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code