Fi V ty^ ^ .^.^ //<? HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTI8GARH, BILA8PUR CriminalAopeal No. 1154 of 2002 APFELLANTS: (InJaU) RESPONDENT: Soru'aj Jangade and auother - Versus - State of Chhattisgarh <!'. JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION HON'BLE MR. SUmL KUMAR SIHHA, J. Sd/. L.C. Bhaduo Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge PQST FOR JUDGMESTOH o 1 -»8 -2007 Sd/- L.C.Bhsdoo Judge mQHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR eriminal Appeal No. 1154 of 2002 APPELIANT8: (la Jail) RESPONDENT: 1. Sonraj Jangade, S/ o Chuitaram Jagde, aged40yrs., R/ o Village Lachlianpur, P.S. Kunda, - Distt. Kawardha, Chhattisgarh. 2. Daaeshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde, S/o Sonraj Jaagde, // aged 22 yrs., R/ o ViUage Lacbhanpur, Distt. Kawardha, Chhattisgarh. Versus - State of Chhattisgarh, Through the S.H.O., P.S. Kuada, Bilaspur. {Cruuiiial appeal under Section 374 (2) offhe Code ofCnmiaal Procedure} ^- • . • Appearauce: - Mr. S.L. Bajaj, counsel for fhe appeUaats. Mr. Astaish Shukla, Additional PubUc Prosecutor for the State/respondent, Divlsion Bench: Hon'ble ffir. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'bleMr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, JJ. JUDGMEHT l^ <. (Delivei-ed on J^_i^^, 2007) The followiag iudetnait of flie Court was deBvered bv L. C. Bhadoo, J.; - By this appeal under Section 374 (2) of fhe Cr.P.C. the appeUants have questioned legality and correctness of tlie judguient of conviction aud order of senteace dated 18-10-2002 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mungeli in Sessions Trial No.402/2000, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge afta holding the accused/appellants guilty for coiumission of ofiGsnce under Sections 302, 302 ia the alteniative 302 reads with Section 34 and 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. for committmg the murders of Sidlu-am '&.Yashwant, seiitenced each of thcm to undergo imprisQnnient for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of •payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months, on each count. It :^t; Page2 ofl8 was further directed fhat the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. V 2. . Case of tihe prosecution, ia brief, is fhat Deepa Kuinari (PW-4) is sister of deceased Yashwaat, she was residuig along with her brother in Old Basti. of. VUlage; Lachanpur, whereas, Kirti Kuiuari (PW-8) is daughter of deceased Sidhratn, she was sesidiag along with her faffier in. New Basti of Village: Lachanpur. Accused Sonraj is also resideut of the saine viUage and he is fafh.er of accused/ appeUaut Daaeshwar. <?. 3. On the occasion of the festival of Lord Gaaesh, deity of Lord Ganesh was instatled pubUcly in the pubUc streef in front ofthe house of Gokul Pusad. In the inorning of 3-9-2000, Kirti Kuinari (PW-8) was cooking inealin her house, vrhexeas her fafha' Sidhi'am was sitting near fhe corridol- of his house, at that tiine, Yashwaiit, nepheffl? of Kirti Kuniari, came runninj from the place of Lord Ganesh festrval and eatered the house of Kirti Kuniari. After pickmg yp Lafhi, Yashwant went outside the hduse sayui^ that a quaird has taken .place wifh the accused persons. In the inean ii tune, the accused persons .also caiae running toiyards fhe house of Kirti Kuniari, Accused Soru-aj"' was carryuig Tabbal, whereas aGcused Daneshwar was carryiiig Lathi, fhey started abusing in filthy language on which Sidhram eaquired as to what has happened. On that, Sonraj attacked Sidhrani wifh Tabbal on his head and accused Daneshwar attacked Sidhrani with Lathi on his head as a result ofwhich Sidbram feU down on the ground. Thereafter, Sonraj attacked Yashwant on tais head with Tabbal 3-4 tttnes and accused Daneshwar also attacked him with Latfai, The accused persons ran away froni the scene of occurrence. Bodies aad clofhes of both the injured persons naxnely, Sidhram & Yashwant were drenched with blood. When Sidhram. & Yashwant were being taken to MungeU hospital ui a buUock cart, by the ttme fhe buUock cart reached Fasterpur, both fhe injured succunibed to fhe injuries sustaiaed by ftiem.. Kirtt Kuinari (PW-8) gave-Dehati Merg iattmatioii Ex. P-10 at Fastet'pur iu coruiection with the death of Sidliram and based on tliat, nierg intunation Ex.P-lOA was registered at Police Station: Kunda. Based on fhe urforxnatton of Kirti jCuiuari (PW-8), Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-9 was given to Virendra Kumar Singli (PW-11) ia Village:Fasterpur and &rst iltforiaation report Ex.P-9A was regista-ed at Police Station: Kunda. In. -~ respe.ct of the deafh ofYashwant, Dehati inerg intimatiQn Ex.P-11 w&s ^—"^ Page 3 of 18 given and based on fhat, raerg iatunatioa Ex.P-llA was registered in PoUce Station: Kunda. Investigatioa was conducted by A.R. Sahu (PW-10), .. Assistaat Sub luspector aud Virendra Kum.ar Sio^gh (PW-11), Sub Inspector. 4. The investigating officer after givuig notice Ex.P-21 to ftie Pauchas, prepared inquest Ex.P-22 on the body of deceased Sidhrata and after givuig notice Ex. P-23 prepared inquest Ex.P-24 on the body ofYashwant Bodies of Sidhraua & Yashwant were sent for post-m.0rtein examination to Prunar}' Healfh Ceutre, Muiigeli where Dr. VibhaSiadur (PW-6) couducted post-iaortem ou the body of Sidhrain.' -She prepared post-inortein report Ex.P-15. She opiaed fhat caiise of death was head injuiy, the death was hoinicidal in nature. She also conducted post-ruortem. on the body of Yashwaitt, prepared post-iaorteiu icport Ex.P-17. She opined that the cause ofdeafh was head iajuiy leading to coina and dcath, fhe uature of deafh was hoiaicidal. Blood staiaed .soil aad plam. soil were seized -under Ex.P-2 from. fhe place of oqciu-rcn.ce where dead body of Yasliwant was lyiag. Accused Soniaj wlifle.in police custody gave m.em.oraadum Ex. P-3 regardiag fhe place where he Kept Tabbal & Lafhi, weaptons of offeuces, ia pursuaace of ttiat, Tabbal (Article 'A') aad Lafhi (Article 'B^ were seized uiider Ex.P-14. Clothes ofaecused Daaeshwar were seized uuder Ex.P-5. Tabbal & Lathi were seut to fhe Assistaat Siirgeon, Prim.ar)' Health Centre, MungeUtmder Ex.P-29 forheropinionas towhetherfhe injuries found on the bodies of Sidhram & Yashwaat could be caused by the weapons. The doctor opined that fhe iiyuries found on the bodies of Sidhram & Vashwant could be caused Toy fhe weapons ia question. Seized articles were sent for cheinical exaraiuation to Porensic Science Laboratoiy, Raipur, froinwhere report Ex. P-31 was received. y. After due com.pletion of iavestigation., charge sheet was filed against fhe accused/appeUaiits m. the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Miingeli, whb iu tum cominitted fhe case to fhe Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, froin wliere leamed 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mungeli, received the case on traasfer for trial. ^. The prosecution ia order to establish chai^es against fhe accused/ appeUaats examiued 12 witoesses. Stateinents of the accused persons - wei;£recorded under Section 313 oftheCr.P.C. in. which fhey denied fhe material appearing agamst fhem in fhe prosecution evideuce and stated l!i Mt Page 4 of 18 fhat they are uuiocent, they have been falsely implicated in fhe erime in questioa. V 7, , Learned Additional Sessions Judge after heariug fhe argiunents ofcounsd for respective parties, convicted aud sentenced the accused/appeUauts ia. the aforesaid m.aruier. 8. We have heard Mr. S.L. Bajaj, learned counsel for the accused/appeUants and Mr, Ashish ShuKla^learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalfof the State/respondent. <f. 9. At the outset, Mr. Bajaj has not disputed the honucidal death of Sidhrain & Yashwant. Moreover, Deepa Kuinari (PW-4) & Kirti Kuinari (PW-8) have categoricaUy stated in fheir evidence fhat accused Sonraj & Daneshwar attacked Sidhram wifh Tabbal & Lafhi, fhereafter, they attacked Yashwant wiUi the same weagons as a result of which both of them sustained injuries on head, becanie unconscious and died on the way when they were being taken. to MungeU hospital in a buUock cart. Above ocular evidence is corroborated by 'the uiedical evidence ofDr, Vibha Suldur (PW- .>'•-.. . , •• .. • 1 . 6) who has .stated in her evidence that she was workmg as Assistant Surgeon in Prunary Health Centre, Mungdi, on 4-9-2000, she conducted post-niortem on the body of Sidliram, blood was oo2±ugout ofthe left ear, fhere was big haemotoiiia on fhe lcft parito temporal region, there was incised pierced perforated wound above left ear ia the teniporal area wrhich Tvas deep up to bone, skuU bone was also fractured froin fhat place, teinporal bone was found fractured, fhere was intracrauial haaiiotonia also, braui w?as lacerated and the death was honiicidal in nature on account of head iajury. She has furfher stated that on the same day she conducted post-niortera on fhe body of Yashwaat, She found fhat fhere was bleeding from right ear, blood was comjng out from nosfril & mouffa, fhere was incised pierced perforated wound on left side of occipital temporal area, the bone -was found fractured in fhat area, brain m.aterial was lacerated, haemotoina was also found, cause ofdeafliwas head iajury and fhe deafh was hoinicidal in nature. In vievr of fhe above ocular and inedical evidence, it is established fhat fhe death of Sidhrain & Yashwaut was honiicidal in nature. f.0. As far as immlvemeut of the accused/appeUants in fhe crime iu question .is egncerned, Mr. S.L. Bajaj, learned counsel for the appeUants, argued 'Aat ia tfais case, tiine of occurren.ee is said to have been the day tiaie, -_!HB;'S Page 5 of18 at the place of occurrence number of persons were residing, but none of the-iadependent witaesses has been exaiained in fhis case except Deepa Kumari (PW-4), sister of Yashwaat & Kirti Kumari (PW-8), daughter of Sidhram.. In the circumstaiiGes, fhey benig closely related to the deceased persons, their evideuce caanot be reUed upon. He also argued fhat both fhese witaesses have stated that accused Souraj attacked the deceased persons wifh Tabbal (iron pointed weapon), whereas accused Dhaneshwar is aUeged to have attacked wifh Lafhi, only one injur)- has been found on. the heads of each of fhe deceased, (here is no Lattri iajury, fherefore, there is variaace between ocular and inedical evidence, as such, the evidence of these two so cailed eye witaesses cannot be believed. Leamed counsel further subinitted fhat as far as the evidence of Deepa Kuniari (PW-4) is concemed, as per the prosecution case, Deepa Kuniari was residiag in. the vicuiily of old Basti. along wifh her biDther Yashwaat (since deceased), whereas, Kirti Kumari was residing in new Basti along with her father Sidhram. (since deceased), .there is distance between fhe two Bastis, ^,. . . . . fherefore, it was not possible for Deepa Kumari to have coine on fhe spot to witness the incident, as suoh, Iier evidence caiuiot be beUeved. Whfle inviting attention of the Court towards Court evidence aiid police case diaiy statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., Mr. Bajaj argued fhat there is, variance between Court evidence and police case diary sta.teinent. This fact also furfher supports his ai^uinent fhat Deepa Kuiaari was not a witaess to fhe iQcident. He further subnutted fhat no blood has beea foiuid ou the yreapons ofoffeuce 'aUeged to have beeu used iii committuig the crmie. In fhe circuiastances, fh.e accused persons Iiave beeu falsely implicated ia fhe crime. Leamed counsel placed reliance on fhe judgments of fhe Apex Court in the matters of Hem Raj and others v. State of Haryaaa (2005 Cri.L.J. 2152) Ss Pohlu v. State of Haryana (2006 Crl.L.J. 532). Regardiag contradiction between medical aad ocular evidence, he reUed upon the judgiiienf of the Apex Court in fhe inatter of Ram Swaroop aad others v. State of Rajasthaa (2004 Cri.L.J. 5043). 11. On the otlier hand, Mr. Ashish 'ghukla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor supported fhe judgment ofthe trial Court. 12. -IB. oder-to appreciate the arguinents advanced by respective counsel, we ^ have examiaed the record. It is true fhat Deepa Kumari (PW-4) is sisterpf Page6afl8 deceased Yashwant and Eirti Kuinari (PW-8) is daughter of deceased Sidliram. Yashwant was nephenr of Kn-ti Kumari. Therefore, fhese two eyewitnesses are closdy related to fhe deceased persons. It is also admitted position fhat the time of incident was during the festival of Lord Ganesh and tlie deity of Lord ©aneshwas instaUed in public street in front of the house of one Gokul Pusad. On fhe occasion of ftie festival of j Lord Ganesh, people of Vlllage: Lachanpur were offering fheir prayers aiid attendiag various functiona duriag th.ese days at the place where tlie deity of Lord Gaaesh was instaUed. Case of fh.e prosecution is that on ttie fateful day i.e. 3-9-2000 iu-fhe iiiorning soine altercation took place betiveen the accused persons aad -deceased Yashwant, therefore, Yashwant rushed towai'ds fhe house of deceased Sidhrain & Kirti Kuin.ari (PW-S). Hearing fhe comi(iotion, Deepa Kumari (PW-4) also rushed towards the house of Sidhram, there iu the first instance, she witnessed the accused pa-sons attackmg Sidhram and fhereafter, Yashwant. At fhat tixae, Kirti Kuiuari was cookuig meal; Yashwant came running to fheir house, picked up Lathi aud <went outside the house sayuig that sonie • quai'rel has taken place. hi fhe irieau tune, accused Sonraj caiae carrying Tabbal in his hand and accused Daneshwar came carryitig Lafhi in his haud, as both are son & faftier respectively,fhey first attacked Sidfaraui, when he enquired froni them as to what has happeued, they also attacked Yashwaat. 13. It is settled law fhat the evideace of eyewitaess caiuiot be rejected inerely on the ground that fhey are relative witaesses, flierefore, they are interested witnesses. On the contrary, in. order to ascertain. veracity offhe evidence of such wiba.ess fhe Court has to scrutmize fhe eviden.ee of such 1 witness wifh care and circuiuspection. 14. In thematter ofHamdeov. State of Maharashtra reported m. 2007 AIR SCW 1835, fhe Apex Court has held that a close relative cannot be charactea-ized as an 'interested' witness, he is a 'natural' witaess, his evidence however, inust be scrutinized carefuUy. ff on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be iatrinsicaUy reliable, inherently probable and whoUy trustwrorfhy, conyiction can bg based on the 'sole' testimony of such witaess. Close relationship of witaess wifh the deceased or victim. is, no .ground to reject his evidence, On fhe contrary, clos-e relative of fhe li'T ;/. r,r Ti';i~:?'i; iss-^ss^^E^S3=^»U«^»iili&^,K*Wtri^dri^^ P^e7 ofl8 ia deceased would normaUy be most rductant to spare fhe real ciilprit and falsely impUcate an innocent person. V 15., In tlie mattea- ofDaIbir Kaur (Mst.) v. State of Punjab reported in (1976} 4 SCC 158, tlie Apex Court held that fhe accused killed his own father aad real brothea" over a property dispute. Eyewittiesses to fhe 'gruesom.e, brutal and zuiprovoked double-inurder were near "rdatiwss of fhe deceased. It was, therefore, contetlded fhat fhey were <uiterested witaaesses aad their evideuce should not be accepted for holding the appellailts guilty. Negativing. Ui&?contention aad upholding the order of conviction, the Court stated that ^ 'Tliere can be no doubt fhat having regard to fhe fact that the uicident took place at mid night mside fhe house of Ajaib Singh, the only natural witnesses wfao could be present to see fhat assault would be Jaswant Kaur and her ruofher Shiv Kaur. No outsider can be expected to have conie at that time because fhe attack by the appeUants was sudden. Moreover, a close relative who is a vexy natural witaess cannot be regarded as an iaterested witaess. The terin "interested" postulates that fhe person concerned niust have soiue. du-ect interest iu. seeing tliat fhe accused person is soine how or the ofher con'victed eifher because he had some aniuius witli the accused or for soine other reason. Such is not the case here." 16. Iii fhe matter of Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana reported in (2005) 9 SCC 195, the convictioa of fhe accused was chatlenged before fhe Apex Court, iuter alia on fhe ground fhat fhe prosecution version was based on testunony of relatives and heace it did not inspu-e confidence. Negativin^ fhe conteation, fhe Apex Court said; 'There is no proposition in law fhat relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On fhe contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that fhe witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely inipUcate fhe accused." 17. Furfher, the Apex Court ia fhe matter of Harbans Kaur (supra) riiled that fhe testiinony of fhe soUtary witness can be basis for conviction, Neitlier the legislature nor the judiciary inandates that there must be particular nunibar of witnesses to record an order of conyiction agaiust the accused. Crunuial Justice system has always'laid emphasis onvalue, veracity and quaUty of evidence rather that on quan.tity, multiplicity or ipluraBty of - itittiesses. It is, therefore, open to a coxupeteut Court tb fuUy and • com^letely rely on a soMtary witaaess and record conviction. Conversdy, it Jl I.. jpl •-)•• Page 8 of 18 \\/h inay acquit ttie accused iii spite of testimony of several witaesses if it is not satisfied about the qual^ty of evidence. The bald contention that no • convictiou caa.be i^corded ia case ofa solitary eyc-witniess, fherefore, has no force and inust be negatived. 18. The Apex Court ia tlie matter of Rizaa aad aaother vs.State of ^ Chhattisgarh, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Chltattisgaa"h> Ralpus, reported m AIR 2003 SC 976, in para 6, held that "tfae relationship is not a factor to afFect credibilily of a witaiess. It is niore <?. often thaa. not a relation would."'not conceal acfual culprit aud make allegations agauist an ianoceut person.. Foundation has to be laid ifplea of false im.plication is m.ade. In such a case, the Court has to adopt a carefiil approach and analyze evidence to find outwhether it is cogeat and credible." 19. Relying upon fhe decision of fhe Apex Court ia State of U.P. vs. Paras Natli Singh aad others AIR 1973 SC pg. 1073, fhe Division Bench of fhe Kerala H^h Court also held in fhe matter ofSahadevan Rajan and others vs. State of Kerala 1992 Cfi.L.J. 2049 fhat "fhe stra^htforward aud trustworthy evidence of relations of titie deceased need no corroboration for sustainmg fhe conviction. Such evidence caiinot be discarded on fhe sole ground ofinteresteduess in fb.e prosecution case." 20. In fhe light of the above principle, ifwe scrutinize the evidence of Deepa Kumari (PW-4) & Kirti Kumari (PW-8), Kird Kuman (PW-8), near whose house fhe incident took place, has stated in her evidence that at about 7 a.m, on the fateful day she inflamed fhe hearth ia order to cook ineal, her father was sittuig in. fhe house, her nephew Yashwaat came from the street, accused Sonraj cariyiiig Tabbal & accused Daneshwar canyiag Lathi caine to fheir house, fhey started abusing on which her father Sidlu-am. asked them not to abuse and why they are abusiag, on ftiat Sonraj attacked her father wifh. Tabbal on his head as a result ofwhich he feU down, thereafter, Danteshwar attacked his fafher wifh Lathi. Thereafter, fhey attacked Yashwaat, her nephew, Soaraj chased Tnm aud attacked wifh Tabbal. Daiieshwar attacked wifh Lafhi as a result ofwhich Yashwant also feU down. Sonraj attacked Yashwant wifh Tabbal 3-4 fcun.es. WIien she came out, Soaraj threatened her that they wiU beat her ats<.!,;therefore, she closed fhe door and after attacking her father aad nephew'they ran away. Her father sustained injuries on head and her Ss.uSSaiS Page9ofl8 w J 31. 22. 23. nephew also sustained mjuries on head. She brought her father & nephew ia the house by dragging them one by one. Lookmg to place of occurraice and time of occurreace, presence of this witness at tfae scene of occuTrence cauaot be doubted. It was morning tiaie, therefore, as a natural course, one has to retoam. in the house. In. cross-exaniination of tlris witaess defence has not been able to dicit anyfhiag which discredits the evidence offhis witotiess. Mr. Bajaj argued that Kirti Kumari (PW-8) has stated in her evidence that she took her father & riephewf,'inside fhe house from ffae place of occurrence and as per the prosecution case, both of thera had sustaiaed uijuries oa head and blood was ooziag out of fhe injuries, whereas, no niaterial has been produced by fhe prosecution ia order to establishfhat blood of Sidlu-am & Yashwant feB on the clofhes of Kirti Kumari or on any article, therefore, her evidence camiot be beUeved. In fhe Ught of the arguinent advaiiced by Mr. Bajaj, we have perused the evidence of Kirti Kumari (PW^S). Jn para 3 ofher evidence,she has stated that when fhe accused persons ran away she dragged her fafher into the liouse and thereafter, Yashwant into fhe house. Nofhing has come ui cross-exainination of this wifcuess that she in any way lifted Sidhram or Yashwant and fheir bodies touched to her clothes so fhat some blood fdl on her clofhes. If auy one drags an uijured person, who is bleeding, by holduig lus hauds or legs, the injuries were on head, fhere was no iajiiry on other parts of the body, fhea it was not possible fhat the person who has dragged the tnjured wfll have aay blood spots on his/her clotfas. Moreover, Kirti Kuiuari has stated tliat her father Sidhram & nephew Yashwant were placed in butlock cart aiid wei-e lieing taken to Mungeli hospital ui order to provide treatnient, but both ofthem succuinbedto the uijuries on flie way at Fasterpur, fhere the PoUce Officer inet her. She ;ave Dehati NaUshi Ex.P-9 ia respect of the iacident to Vireiidra Kumar Siugh (PW-11), Su'b Inspector, Pehati inerg intunation Ex.F-10 ia respect of Sidltraui and Dehati inerg int.jm ation Ex.P-11 ia respect ofYashwant. Perusal of Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-9, reveals fhat fhe inaruuer in wluch the ollerice took place has been categorically meationed, it was givea at 3.1Q p.m, aud dlstance betnreen the place of occurreace & Fasterpur was 20 kms. Wlfhiu a reasonable tiine, fhis Dehati Halishi was given by fhis witiiess (Kirti Kuniari), Wtiat she has stated jn her Coiirt evidence has [..-iS'SQ_sni. Page 10 of 18 24. 25; 26. ')•.., •V tieea categorically nientioned in fhe Dehati Nalishi. There is no variance befcveen Court evidence aad Dehati NaUshi. Therefore, fhis fiirther establishes fhe fact that she had witaessed the offence. The case ofHem RaJ (supra) cited by leamed counsel for fhe appeUants is distiuguishable on facts and the observation of fhe Apex Court ia that case that fhere were no blood stauis on their cloffaes is of ao help in fhe present case. In fhat cass, siace those witaesses claiined that they picked up the deceased injured person, placed hini on the cot and carried hi'm to •'/. the hospital, tb.e Court observed th&t no blood was found on fheir clofhes, therefore, fhe evidence ofthis witness caanot be believed. Whereas, in fhe present case, Kirti Kumari (PW-8) has siiaply stated that she dragged her father & nephew Sidhi-ain & Yashwant, respectively, ia fhe house. Therefore, there was no occasion that blood inust have been found on her clotties. Mr. Bajaj furfher argued that Deepa Kuman (PW-4) & Yashwaat were <*- - . • __- .! ^ . '-_ residing in old viciiuty of Lachaapur whereas, Kirti Kuiaari (PW-8) & Sidhram were residiag ia new viciaity. The stateruent made by Deepa Kumari that her house was at a distauce of 3-4 houses from the place of occurrence cannot be beUeved, because one of fhe witaesses has stated fhat distance between old aud new vicmity is aboiit one furlong. Perusal of the evidence of Radhey Rra.sad (PW-5) icveals that distance between fhe two houses is about 100-150 meters. Latel Rain (PW-9) wbo is a Patwari, a Goveniinent servant aad an independent wituess, ia his cross- exainiaatioa stated fhat old viciaity aad new viciiuty are adjacent. Therefore, in view of tfae above evidenee of fhese two witaesses (PW-5 & PW-9), it cannot be sald th.at the evidence of Deepa Kumari (PW-4) is not correct fhat her house is at a distauce of 3-4 houses Irom the place of occuTrence. As far as the argunient about variance between poUce case diaiy stateiuent and Court evid'ence is concemed, Mr. Bajaj invited attention of fhe Coiu-t towards paras 4, 5, 6 &7 of fhe evidence of Deepa Kuinari (PW-4) wherem. it has been stated by Iier that she disclosed to Police fhat after hearing the conunbtiou when she came out of the' house, she saw accused Soiu-aj canyiag Tabbal aud Dinfisliwar carrying Lathi in - ttieir-.tiaiids,. going towards the house of Kirti Kumari, if the same •is >not written ia Ex.