Jeet Singh And Others vs State Of Delhi
1995 Latest Caselaw 42 Del

JUDGMENT

S.D. Pandit, J.

1. Above named three appellants stand convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge. Shahdara in Sessions Case No. 65/1988 and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. Facts giving rise to the prosecution of appellants could be stated as under :

Appellants No. 2 Gurmukh Singh and appellant No. 3 Kashmira Singh are sons of appellant No. 1 Jeet Singh. Deceased Kartar Singh was the elder brother of accused No. 1 Jeet Singh. These three accused were residing along with their family members in a house at Hardev Puri. But in the riots, which took place after the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the house belonging to the appellants was set on fire. Hence appellant Jeet Singh came to his brother Kartar Singh and Kartar Singh gave him shelter by giving one room of his house and the accused started occupying one room in the house of Kartar Singh. About 8/9 months after the accused-appellants came to reside there deceased Kartar Singh suggested his brother that the atmosphere was quite calm and there was no danger and therefore Jeet Singh should leave his house and go back to his house. But it seems accused were avoiding to pay heed to his advice and they were not taking any steps to leave Kartar Singh's house. Due to the same and on account of activities of children quarrels were taking place between the families of two brothers.

3-4. The incident in question has taken place on 29th of December, 1985. On that day in the morning there was petty quarrel between two families due to children at about 10.00 a.m. At about 5.00 p.m. deceased Kartar Singh, his wife Somawanti (PW. 2) and their daughter Shakuntala (PW. 3) were sitting in their Court yard. At that time appellant No. 1 Jeet Singh started urinating in front of all of them. There upon PW. 2 Somawanti and Kartar Singh objected his said behavior and PW. 2 Somawanti questioned him as to whether it was befitting him to do so in the presence of her daughter. On that appellant Jeet Singh remarked that she was becoming more wise and had no control over her tongue and if she happened to continue to behave like that then she must be finished. On hearing those remarks of his brother Jeet Singh Kartar Singh said that it was better that they should go to police and lodge a complaint with police before he could finish them. By saying so Kartar Singh his wife PW. 2 Somawanti and daughter PW. 3 Shakuntala left their house in order to go to police station.

5-6. When deceased Kartar Singh his wife PW. 2 Somawanti and daughter PW. 3 Shakuntala had come on the road and were going towards police station they found cousin brother of both appellant Jeet Singh and deceased Kartar Singh PW. 4 Man Singh was also on the way and following them. When all the three came in front of house No. H-40 all the three appellants came there from their back side. Appellant Jeet Singh and Kashmira Singh caught hold of Kartar Singh and Jeet Singh asked appellant No. 2 Gurmukh Singh to take out a knife to teach a lesson to Kartar Singh for going to lodge a complaint with the police. There upon appellant No. 2 Gurmukh Singh took out a knife and started giving blows of knife one after another at random. When PW. 2 Somawanti and PW. 3 Shakuntala pushed ahead to rescue Kartar Singh they were pushed away by appellant No. 3 Kashmira Singh and he had also threatened them that if they happened to come ahead they would be also killed. But on hearing screams of Kartar Singh and the ladies some persons passing on the road and from the neighborhood gathered there and they pelted stones and other things on the appellants. One of the stone was seen by PW. 2 Somawanti hitting appellant Gurmukh Singh. Thereafter the accused left Kartar Singh and took to their heels.

7. Then PW. 4 Man Singh came ahead and PW. 2 Somawanti and PW. 4 Man Singh put Kartar Singh in one rickshaw. Man Singh boarded that rickshaw whereas PW. 2 Somawanti took another rickshaw and they took Kartar Singh to General Hospital at Shahdara. When doctor on duty examined Kartar Singh he declared that he was brought dead. Then the police constable on hospital duty gave intimation about the same at 6.00 p.m. in the police station. Shahdara. There upon PW. 13 SI Tulsi Das rushed to General Hospital of Shahdara. He found that doctor was examining the injuries. He also found PW. 2 Somawanti and PW. 4 Man Singh present there. He recorded the first information of PW. 2 Somawanti and send the same to the police station to register the offence. Her FIR was registered at No. 531/85. PW. 13 SI Tulsi Das also found that accused No. 1 Jeet Singh and accused No. 2 Gurmukh Singh were also present in hospital and accused No. 2 Gurmukh Singh had injuries on his person and he was to be examined by doctor and doctor was to give MLC reports regarding both Kartar Singh as well as accused No. 2 Gurmukh Singh. He therefore, kept his subordinate there and he himself went along with P.W. 2 Somawanti and P.W. 4 Man Singh to the place of incident. There he found pool of blood. He collected blood stained earth and simple earth and prepared the memo of sight and prepared sight plan and returned to the hospital. He collected MLC reports and then arrested both accused No. 1 Jeet Singh and accused No. 2 Gurmukh Singh. He arranged for inquest of the dead body and sent it for post mortem and then went to police station along with both accused.

8. He then recorded statements of PW. 3 Shakuntala Kaur and PW. 4 Man Singh. He interrogated accused Gurmukh Singh. He made discovery statement and led the police and produced the blood stained knife. Then the attached knife and other articles were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory. In the mean time the accused No. 3 was arrested on 30th December, 1985. On completion of necessary investigation all the three accused were challenged before Metropolitan Magistrate. But as the offence punishable under Section 302 is exclusively friable by Court of Sessions accused were committed to the Court of Sessions on 30th April, 1986.

9. A charge is framed against the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 on 12th November, 1986. All the accused have pleaded not guilty to the charge. Their defenses is of total denial and false implication.

10. In order to prove its case against the accused prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses. Out of them PW. 4 Man Singh turned hostile and he did not support the prosecution case. Trial Court accepted the evidence particularly of two eye witnesses PW. 2 Somawanti and PW. 3 Shakuntala Kaur and the other evidence led by prosecution and held them guilty of the offence with which they are charged and sentenced them as stated earlier.

11. Being felt aggrieved by the said decision accused have preferred the present appeal. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that PW. 2 Somawanti and PW. 3 Shakuntala Kaur are interested witnesses and their evidence in the absence of the corroboration by the evidence of an independent witness should not be accepted their version is inconsistent, improbable and unbelievable. The evidence of the alleged discovery of the weapon at the instance of appellant Gurmukh Singh is false. The prosecution has not given any explanation of the injuries on the person of accused No. 2 Gurmukh Singh. Therefore, the prosecution version could not be accepted beyond doubt. They further contended that there are inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence led by prosecution therefore, the accused should be given benefit of doubt.

12. Prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses. Out of said 13 witnesses prosecution has examined PW. 2 Somawanti, PW. 3 Shakuntala Kaur and PW. 4 Man Singh as the eye-witnesses. These three eye witnesses are examined by prosecution as direct witness. Out of these three witnesses PW. 4 Man Singh has turned hostile and he has not at all supported the prosecution and he has not stuck up to his statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the only eye witnesses are PW. 2 Somawanti and PW. 3 Shankuntala Kaur. No doubt both of them are related to deceased as they are respectively his wife and daughter. But merely because they are related and interested witnesses their evidence could not be thrown away or discarded. We have to scrutinize their evidence scrupulously before accepting the same.

13. PW. 2 Somawanti has deposed that on the day of the incident there was a petty quarrel on account of children at about 10.00 a.m. But it had come to an end in the morning itself. Then on that day in the evening, her husband Kartar Singh and her daughter PW. 3 Shakuntala were present and at that time the appellant No. 1 Jeet Singh came in front of them and started urinating. Therefore, she said to him that her daughter Shakuntala was there and he should not behave like that. There upon appellant No. 1 remarked that if they happened to talk much then they would be killed by knife. Thereupon her husband said that they were going to be dangerous and hence they should go to police and report about the same to police. Accordingly all three of them were proceeding towards police station. When they were in front of house No. H-40 all the appellants came there. Appellant Jeet Singh and Kashmira Singh caught hold her husband by his arms and then Jeet Singh asked Gurmukh Singh to teach a lesson to Kartar Singh to go to police station. Then Gurmukh Singh took out a knife and started giving repeated blows on her husband. When she and Shakuntala went ahead to rescue him appellant Kashmira Singh pushed them violently and threatened them with deaths. Then the people who collected there started pelting stones on appellants and one stone was seen by her hitting Gurmukh Singh and then accused took to their heels and ran away. Then PW. 4 Man Singh who came ahead and she put her husband in a rickshaw and Man Singh accompanied her husband by the rickshaw to hospital and she went by another rickshaw to hospital.

14. The above version of PW. 2 Somawanti is fully supported by her FIR which is lodged by her within 1-1/2 hours when the same was recorded in hospital by PW. 13 SI Tulsi Das. It is also corroborated by the testimony of PW. 3 Shakuntala. Her version is cogent, clear and consistent. It is supported by medical evidence on record. Dr. L. T. Ramani PW. 10 has found in all 24 incised wounds-injuries on the body of Kartar Singh. He has deposed that all those injuries were anti mortem. He has also opined that the injuries Nos. 3 to 10, 12, 14, 21, and 22 were individually sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. Even the hostile witness PW. 4 Man Singh has supported her claim that Kartar Singh was put in rickshaw by both of them and he took Kartar Singh by that rickshaw to hospital and PW. 2 Somawanti came by another rickshaw to hospital.

15. The evidence of PW. 5 Om Pal Singh and PW. 13 SI Tulsi Das the investigation officer shows that the accused-appellant Gurmukh Singh made a statement leading to discovery of the dagger and Gurmukh Singh produced the dagger Ex. P. 1. The report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Ex. PX 3 shows that the said dagger produced by appellant Gurmukh Singh was having the blood stains of blood group B which is the blood group of deceased Kartar Singh. Both PW. 2 Somawanti and PW. 3 Shankuntala Kaur have identified the said dagger Ex. P. 1 as the weapon used by appellant Gurmukh Singh in attacking deceased Kartar Singh. Therefore the discovery of said weapon. Ex. P. 1 at the instance of appellant gives corroboration to version of both PW. 2 Somawanti and PW. 3 Shankuntala Kaur. It is urged before us that the evidence of discovery of weapon should not be accepted as it has come in evidence that the place from where recovery is made is very near the police station. It is true that the investigating officer PW. 13 Tulsi Das has admitted in his cross-examination that the place of recovery is 15 paces away from the backside wall of police station. But evidence of PW. 5 Om Pal Singh and PW. 13 Tulsi Das shows that the knife was kept hidden under bushes and it was a public park. Appellant Gurmukh Singh wanted to go to Hospital as soon as possible in order to create evidence to show that he had sustained injuries in an accident. Therefore, it could not be said that it is an improbability that he would go to that spot. It has not come on record that spot is not on the way between the place of incident and the hospital. It has not also come on record that there was any other convenient spot or place for hiding the weapon between the place of assault and General Hospital. In the above circumstances we are unable to reject the evidence of discovery of dagger merely because the place of hiding was on the backside of the police station.

16. It must be remembered that the assault on Kartar Singh has taken place in open broad day light. Therefore it is not at all probable that PW. 2 Somawanti and PW. 3 Shakuntala will leave the real culprits and will try to implicate their close relatives namely, brother-in-law and nephews who are not at all on any seriously inimical relations. It must be also mentioned that in the cross-examination of either PW. 2 Somawanti. PW. 3 Shakuntala or PW. 4 Man Singh who is available to accused, any material is brought to show that deceased Kartar Singh had enmity or dispute with anybody else who might have attacked him.

17. Thus, we do not find and reason to discard the evidence of both PW. 2 Somawanti and PW. 3 Shakuntala. We have found that they are truthful witnesses.

18. No doubt the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses. It has also come that the incident had taken place in a public road and people had gathered at the place of incident. But the material on record clearly shows that none of them had come ahead to give statements before police under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The evidence of both PW. 2 Somawanti and PW. 4 Man Singh clearly shows that the persons from public had not even come ahead to lift Kartar Singh and to put him in rickshaw and he was carried by both of them alone. In this connection, the general tendency and reluctance of a citizen to appear as a witness to get himself involved in case is now a days very rampant. This tendency is more due to the treatment they receive at the hands of the police during investigation and on account of they have to attend the Court on numerous dates. Thus there is a general tendency to remove oneself from the spot of incident as far as possible. But any way the material on record clearly shows that no statement of any person besides PWs. 2 to 4 are recorder during investigation. Hence this is not a case of prosecution not examining a material witness though available. The material brought out in the cross-examination of the investigating officer shows that he tried to collect evidence of independent witness. He had approached the occupants of House No. H-40 in front of which the incident in question took place but he went away by back door. Therefore, in view of the facts on record it is not possible to hold that the evidence of two eye-witnesses should be rejected for want of corroboration by independent witnesses.

19. Then it is further contended that according to PW. 2 Somawanti and PW. 3 Shakuntala Kaur the incident took place by about 5/5.15 p.m. whereas PW. 4 Man Singh has deposed it took place at 4/45.15 p.m. It is contended that though PW. 4 Man Singh has turned hostile it is not necessary to ignore and brush aside his evidence and his evidence must be considered. In support of that submission the case of Keshoram v. State of Assam, is cited before us. We are quite aware that merely because a witness is declared hostile and cross examined by the party summoning him his evidence could not be defaced. The Court has to scrutinise his testimony and accept that portion of the same which receives corroboration from other evidence on record. Therefore, we would first consider as to whether this witness PW. 4 Man Singh could be believed in part and whether any portion of his evidence could be accepted. PW. 4 Man Singh has deposed that on that day at about 4/4.15 p.m. he was passing on the road and at that time he found Kartar Singh lying dead on the road with injuries on his person and then he went to his house and informed PW. 2 Somawanti. She then came to spot and then both of them put him in a rickshaw and took him to hospital. The above version is quite contrary to his statement made by him before police under Section 161. His version before police in his statement under Section 161 is completely in the line of the version of PW. 2 and the prosecution case, than the version he was giving for the first time in the Court. That version is quite contrary to his version given by him within four hours from the incident in his statement before police. A part from that his claim that he had found Kartar Singh lying dead in the street is falsified by his own conduct. If Kartar Singh was found lying dead in the street there was no question of picking up his dead body to the hospital. In that case he would have left body there in the street and would have taken PW. 2 Somawanti to police station to inform the police. His conduct in rushing the injured to hospital clearly indicate that injured Kartar Singh must have been assaulted in his presence as deposed by Somawanti. Then the MLC report on record shows that the history of injuries given is noted as under :

"Alleged history of being stabbed on body." Admittedly Kartar Singh was admitted in the hospital by Man Singh. Therefore, PW. 4 Man Singh must have given this history. That shows that he had seen the stabbing on the body of Kartar Singh. Therefore, in view of above discussed evidence of his conduct we are unable to uphold his claim that he had found Kartar Singh lying dead on road.

20. His claim that he had removed deceased Kartar Singh by about 4.30 p.m. and that the incident took place prior to 4.30 p.m. is not at all believable. The learned advocate for the appellants have vehemently urged before us that that claim of P.W. 4 is supported by the evidence of P.W. 11 Dr. Purthy and the medico legal case papers prepared by him. It is true that this P.W. 11 has deposed that on 29th December, 1985 at 5.00 p.m. he had examined Kartar Singh. But if the M.L.C. prepared by him is seen then in the said M.L.C. though there is a specific column of date and arrival is printed he has not written that timing of 5.00 P.M. there. If his evidence and M.L.C. is considered then it would clearly show that he is not at all a particular man and is capable of committing mistake. He has not given the timing of examining accused No. 2 Gurmukh Singh in M.L.C. He has mentioned in his M.L.C. as well as deposed that there were only 13 injuries on Karta Singh where as evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. L. T. Ramani as well as post mortem notes shows that there were 24 incised wounds on Kartar Singh. Dr. L. T. Ramani had noted only two injuries on the back side of Kartar Singh whereas this P.W. 11 Dr. Purthy says that there were six injuries on his back. If the ocular evidence is considered then his say that there were six injuries on back is obviously incorrect. As per evidence of P.W. 2 Somawanti Kartar Singh must have been taken to hospital by 6.00 p.m. The evidence of P.W. 13 S. I. Tulsi Das shows that the constable on hospital duty had given a ring from hospital by about 6.00 p.m. and had informed about bringing of injured in hospital. Thereafter he went to hospital and there he recorded FIR of P.W. 2 Somawanti and that FIR is registered in the police station at 7.15 p.m. He has deposed that when he had reached hospital after getting telephonic message at 6.00 p.m. the doctor was examining injuries of injured. That claim of him is not denied in his cross examination. Therefore, if all the above circumstances are considered then the claim of P.W. 4 Man Singh that the incident took place at 4/4.15 p.m. and he took injured to hospital at 5.00 p.m. is false. That the evidence of P.W. 4 Man Singh could not be believed and accepted. Thus the version of P.W. 2 Somawanti that the incident took place at 5/5.15 p.m. will have to be accepted without any hesitation of mind.

21. As the incident in question has taken place at about 5/5.15 p.m. the registering of FIR at 7.15 P.M in the police station could not be said to be delayed. Then mere delay of some time in lodging FIR could not be fatal to prosecution in every case unless some prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused. (See State of U.P. v. Gokaran, . No material is brought out through the prosecution witnesses by the accused to show that there was purposeful delay in lodging FIR and that a prejudice is caused to them. There is nothing on record to infer that the prosecution has introduced some improvement and for that purpose there was delay in lodging the FIR.

22. It is an admitted fact that appellant No. 2 Gurmukh Singh had some injuries on his person. As per the evidence of Dr. J. S. Purthy there were seven injuries on his person. Out of those seven injuries there is one incised wound on the tip of the middle finger of the right hand. All other injuries are aclws (sic) and swelling. As per the evidence of both P.W. 2 Somawanti and P.W. 3 Shakuntala Kaur when this Gurmukh Singh was giving knife blows the people had pelted stones on him in order to disperse him. P.W. 3 Shakuntala has stated in her cross-examination Gurmukh Singh had received more than one stone. Therefore, the aclws (sic) and swelling are possible by those stones hits on him. The incised wound on the tip of his middle finger is possible on account of his handling of his own knife by which he has inflicted 24 blows one after another on Kartar Singh. Therefore, it could not be said that the injuries on his person are not explained. It must be also mentioned here that during the cross examination of P.W. 2 Somawanti P.W. 3 Shakuntala and the Investigating Officer there is no questioning to any of them about the injuries on accused No. 2 Gurmukh Singh. None of them was asked anything about the injuries on appellant Gurmukh Singh. In view of above discussed circumstances it could not be said that the prosecution has not explained the injuries on the person of the appellant Gurmukh Singh.

23. Learned counsel for the appellants have cited before us the cases of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 SC 212 : (1989 Cri LJ 115) and Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, . If the facts of both the cases are seen then it would be quite clear that in both the cases the plea of right of private defense of person was raised on behalf of accused and therefore the failure of prosecution to explain the injuries on accused was taken into consideration and an adverse inference was drawn against the prosecution. Therefore, both the cases are not applicable to the facts of the case before us. We will also like to observe that as the prosecution witnesses were not at all asked during their cross examination about the injuries on appellant Gurmukh Singh their evidence could not be rejected. In case of Bhagwan v. State of Maharashtra, the following principles are laid down :

"There is no hard and fast rule that simply because the prosecution witnesses did not explain the injuries on the person of accused their entire evidence should be dismissed."

In the case before us as a matter of fact prosecution witnesses have deposed the cause which has resulted into causing injuries to appellant Gurmukh Singh. Even assuming in favor of accused that that explanation of injuries is not satisfactory that could not be ground to reject their testimonies. In a recent decision of State of U.P. v. Mukunde Singh, the Apex Court has laid down as under :

"Merely on the ground that the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries on the accused the High Court ought not to have rejected their evidence ought right."

Thus the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution witnesses have failed to explain injuries on Gurmukh Singh and therefore their evidence should be rejected could not be accepted.

24. It is further contended that when it is an admitted fact that appellant Jeet Singh and Gurmukh Singh were present in the hospital where Kartar Singh was taken immediately after he was taken there as just by the time he was taken there, the prosecution version does not seem to be probable. It is contended that when the accused Gurmukh Singh was the assailant he would not all go to hospital and make himself available for being arrested. The appellant Gurmukh Singh's conduct in going to hospital is not a conduct of a person who would have been the real culprit. It must be remembered that there are no set rules regarding human behavior and conduct. Different persons react differently to same set of circumstances. Different persons react in different ways in situation of emergency as well as crisis. If the statement of accused Gurmukh Singh under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is considered along with the suggestion put to the medical expert regarding the cause of injuries on his person then his going to hospital at that time could not be said to be unnatural. The accused has taken a plea that he was on Grant Trunk Road going in a rickshaw and his father on cycle and at that time a three wheeler came and gave a dash to his rickshaw and hence he fell down and sustain the injuries. He thus want to create evidence for the injuries sustained by him due to hitting of stones and on account of handling of knife as well as to place himself far away from the spot. It must be remembered that if the version given by him in his statement under Section 313 was true then his version shows commission of offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code. He would have also examined the rickshaw puller to support his claim. But no such evidence is brought on record. But one thing is quite clear that in view of his version under Section 313 his conduct in going to hospital could not be said to be unnatural or improbable.

25. The next submission made on behalf of the appellants is that in view of injuries on person of Kartar Singh the claim of P.W. 2 Somawanti and P.W. 3 Shankuntala Kaur is not probable. It is submitted that as per evidence of P.W. 11 Dr. J. S. Purthy there were six injuries on the back of Kartar Singh and according to both P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 accused Jeet Singh and accused Kashmira Singh had caught hold of Kartar Singh by his two arms and accused Gurmukh Singh had given blows from his front side. Therefore, the existence of six injuries on his back makes the claim of P.W. 2 Somawanti and P.W. 3 Shakuntala Kaur unbelievable and improbable. In support of that submission the case of B. N. Singh v. State of Gujarath, . But before considering the facts of the said case we would like to mention here that we have found that the findings of P.W. 11 Dr. J. S. Purthy could not be believed and accepted. We are unable to accept his claim that there were six injuries on the back of Kartar Singh. We found that in view of the evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. L. T. Ramani, post mortem notes and ocular evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 the evidence of P.W. 11 Dr. J. S. Purthy could not be believed and accepted. In case of Pattipati Venkaiah v. State, 1985 SCC (Cri) 464 : (1985 Cri LJ 2012) it has been held that the medical evidence should not be viewed with mathematical precision and accuracy. Then in case of Solanki Chimabhi Ukabhai v. State of Gujarath, 1983 SCC (Cri) 379 : (1983 Cri LJ 822) the head note runs as under :

"Eye witness vis-a-vis medical witness testimony of eye witness would be preferable to the medical evidence unless the medical evidence completely rules out the eye witness version."

The above cited cases support our conclusion that the evidence of P.W. 11 Dr. J. S. Purthy regarding the injuries described him as on the back of Kartar Singh could not be believed in view of oral evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. L. T. Ramani.

26. The learned advocate for appellant No. 3 has put reliance on the following head note of .

"Murder - Appreciation of evidence - Witnesses interested persons - One of accused found to be falsely implicated by them - Version of them that three accused caught hold of deceased and remaining three inflicted knife blows - Improbable in view of injuries found all over body of deceased - Evidence of witnesses not trust worthy - Accused entitled to be acquitted.

The above head note itself shows that in that case the prosecution witnesses had falsely implicated one person. Then in that case it was the claim of prosecution witnesses that three persons had caught hold of the deceased and three persons had given knife blows on the deceased. Doctor had found injuries all over the body and therefore it is observed : (Para 9) "If really three persons were holding the deceased in the manner spoken to by these interested witnesses, the other three persons armed with big knives could not have indiscriminately caused the injuries on all parts of body in that manner. It would not have been possible for them to cause injuries without causing hurt to the persons so holding. Therefore, we are not prepared to accept the prosecution version."

The above observations themselves clearly show that they are based on the facts before Their Lordships. In that case six persons were prosecuted. Trial court had acquitted four and held only accused Nos. 1 and 5 guilty. High Court has set aside the acquittal of accused Nos. 2, 4 and 6. Against that decision matter had come before Apex Court and in view of material on record above observations are made particularly in view of concurrent findings of two courts that accused No. 3 was falsely prosecuted. If the cross examination of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 is seen, then same shows that they were not all cross examined as regards the manner accused Jeet Singh caught deceased Kartar Singh. Hence the facts of the case before us are quite distinct from the facts of .

27. The learned counsel for appellant No : 3 Mr. Sethi cited before us the case of Lakhbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (1988) 3 Crimes 308 (Punj & Har). The facts of the said case clearly show that it is not applicable to the facts before us. In that case the presence of eye witnesses was found doubtful. Witnesses were having very strained relations with accused. Witnesses had deposed that three accused persons had fired shots on the victims from their three different firearms. Medical evidence showed that all injuries sustained by all victims must have been caused by one and the same weapon. Therefore, the witnesses were not believed in that case.

28. The learned counsel for the appellant No. 3 has cited before us the cases of Kartar Singh v. State, (1988) 2 Crimes 634 (Delhi), Awadesh v. State of M.P., 1988 Cri App R 129 : (1988 Cri LJ 1154). But the facts of both the cases clearly show that they are not applicable to the facts before us. In the first case of (1988) 2 Crimes 634 (Delhi) all the three eye witnesses were from one and same native place. They were knowing each other. They were living in one and same building. Then they tried to implicate three persons though injuries sustained indicated that they must have caused by only one person. Then there was delay in recording statements of two of them as well as the first information report. Hence they were not believed. In 1988 Cri App R (SC) 129 : (1988 Cri LJ 1154) the statements of two eye witnesses were recorded two months after the incident. There was no satisfactory explanation for that delay. The prosecution witnesses found highly interested. Then there were independent known witnesses but they did not come ahead to support prosecution. Then it was also found that on facts two views were possible and hence benefit of doubt was given to accused. Thus both cases do not apply to the facts before us.

29. Thus we have come to the conclusion that evidence of P.W. 2 Somawanti and P.W. 3 Shakuntla Kaur is cogent, clear and consistent. It is supported and corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. L. T. Ramani, P.W. 10. Therefore, the trial court was quite justified in accepting their evidence.

30. The act of accused No. 1 in catching Kartar Singh and inviting accused No. 2 Gurmukh Singh and telling to teach a lesson and then Gurmukh Singh giving 24 blows of knife and appellant Jeet Singh catching Kartar Singh till those blows were given clearly shows that he shared the common intention along with appellant Gurmukh Singh to cause intentional death of Kartar Singh. Similarly the acts of appellant Kashmira Singh of catching Kartar Singh and allowing appellant Gurmukh Singh to give 24 blows of knife and further pushing away PW. 2 and PW. 3 and threatening them with death when they had come ahead to rescue Kartar Singh clearly show that he shared the intention of causing homicidal death of Kartar Singh. Thus all the appellants are rightly held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

31. Thus we hold that there is no merit in this appeal. Appeal deserved to be dismissed. Appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction of appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the order of sentence passed by trial Court are maintained and confirmed. Appellant No. 1 Jeet Singh and Appellant No. 3 Kashmira Singh should surrender their bails and undergo punishment. Appellant Gurmukh Singh be informed of this decision through Jail authorities.

32. Appeal dismissed.