Ram Niwas vs The State
1995 Latest Caselaw 914 Del

JUDGMENT

J.B. Goel, J.

1. The appellant has been convicted by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi for offence under Section 302, IPC (FIR No. 278/87, P.S. Patel Nagar) for committing the murder of one Ram Sarup at about 6.00 p.m. at Kathputli Colony, Delhi vide judgment dated January 25, 1992 and vide separate order dated January 27, 1992 he has been sentenced to life imprisonment.

2. The facts of the case are that some unknown persons telephonically informed police station Patel Nagar that some quarrel was going on behind MCD Primary School in Kathputli Colony and that police may be sent. This information was recorded as DD No. 21-A (Ex. PW-1/A) at 6.05 p.m. on 31st July, 1987. On receipt of the copy of this DD entry SI Sukhbir Singh along with constable Siri Om reached the place of occurrence situated at Kathputli Colony, New Delhi and found deceased Ram Sarup and accused Ram Niwas lying in injured conditions there. He sent the two injured persons to RML. Hospital through constable Siri Om. Ram Dayal brother of the deceased met him there and got recorded his first information statement Ex. PW 61A. In his statement he had alleged that he was residing in the jhuggi there and after finishing his duty in DDA office at 5.00 p.m. he came home and he and his brother Ramesh and younger brother Ram Sarup were sitting on a cot near their jhuggi; at about 6.00 p.m., their neighbour Ram Niwar with whom generally quarrels used to take place was passing in front of his jhuggi in drunken condition and on seeing them started abusing and also said that he was fed up of the daily quarrels and he would not spare them any more. He was asked not to so abused but on this he became more furious; brought an axe from his jhuggi and gave a blow with that axe on the head of his younger brother Ram Sarup with full force. His brother fell down unconscious. His head started bleeding. As a result of this blow the handle of the axe had broken. Ram Niwas then on seeing blood coming from the head of his brother, threw the broken handle of that axe on the ground there and while he was running towards his jhuggi he stumbled and fell with his face down; he also picked up a stone and started giving stone blows on his face and thereby causing injuries to himself.

3. The said SI had found the blood smeared axe and its broken handle lying near Ram Sarup injured and two injured Ram Sarup and Ram Niwas were lying there; both of whom were sent to the hospital. He made his endorsement on the aforesaid statement of Ram Dayal and set it at about 7.00 p.m. through the Head Constable Dharam Vir Singh, who had also reached there, for registration of FIR and the FIR was registered at 7.10 p.m. under Section 307, IPC. The said SI had visited the hospital, collected the MLCs of the two injured persons but they were found unfit to make statement. He came back at the spot. Blood stained axe and its broken handle which were lying at the spot, blood stained earth etc. were picked up from the spot in sealed parcels and site plan (Ex. P.W. 16/A) was prepared by him. Photographs of the scene were also taken. Injured Ram Sarup succumbed to his injuries and died at about 8.00 p.m. on the same night, intimation of which was received at the police station on the following day. Inquest proceedings were recorded by the said SI. Post mortem examination was conducted at Civil Hospital by Dr. L. T. Ramani (P.W. 5) at about 2.30 p.m. on 1st August, 1987 vide his report Ex. PW 5/A. The post-mortem doctor preserved the blood stained clothes and sample of blood of the deceased in sealed cover which were seized by the police.

4. The accused was discharged from the hospital on 1st August, 1987 when he was arrested. Seized articles were sent to CFSL and in due course their reports Ex. PW-16/E, Ex. P.W. 16/F and Ex. P.W. 16/G were obtained. The accused was tried for offence under Section 302, IPC. Besides the post-mortem doctor, three eye witnesses, namely, P.W. 6 Ram Dayal, complainant, his brother Ramesh P.W. 13 and one Chiranji Lal, P.W. 7 were examined as eye witnesses who supported the prosecution case. The accused in his statement under Suction 313, Cr.P.C denied the prosecution case and pleaded that Ramesh, brother of deceased had abused him and on this he had also abused him; Then Ramesh brought an axe; and wanted to attack him with that axe but he bent down on one side and the axe fell upon the head of Ram Sarup who had caught him, thereby Ram Sarup sustained injuries in this manner; he himself had a providential escape; the two brothers of the injured/deceased then gave him merciless beatings and he has been falsely implicated by them. He also examined two witnesses to prove that he had lodged a complaint with the police on 10-7-1987 copy of which is mark DZ, about the alleged quarrels between him and the complainant's party. D.W. 1 is a Sub-Inspector from that police station and D.W. 2 is the wife of the appellant. The trial Court believed the prosecution case, found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that testimony of three eye witnesses is not reliable and trustworthy. P.W. 7 Chiranji Lal has been falsely introduced and his presence is very much doubtful; the trial Court has wrongly discarded the defense plea which is truthful and more probable and has been satisfactorily proved from the material on record; the injuries caused to the appellant in the same occurrence have not been explained which also makes prosecution case doubtful and unbelievable. He has relied on Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar . He has also contended that investigation is not fair as finger prints have not been lifted from the handle of the axe intentionally which would have shown that the axe was not wielded by the appellant. P.Ws. 6 and 13 are interested witnesses being brothers of deceased and their testimony is not reliable for this reason also and ought not to have been believed. It has also been contended that motive for this crime had not been proved which also renders prosecution case doubtful and this aspect has been wrongly over looked by the trial Court.

6. Whereas learned counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case. He has contended that the presence of the accused at the time of occurrence ia not disputed. FIR was lodged promptly. Presence of P.W. 6 who had lodged the FIR and his brother Ramesh, P.W. 13 is not disputed; their testimony is cogent, most reliable and the learned trial Court has been proved by natural and truthful eye witnesses; finger prints could not be lifted for which explanation has been given; and this circumstance is of no consequence otherwise. The findings of trial Court are reasonable and justified. There is no ground to interfere with the same.

Cause of death

7. P.W. 5 Dr. L. T. Ramani who conducted the post-mortem examination on 1st August, 1987 at 2.30 p.m. on the body of deceased Ram Sarup aged 16 years (not 60 years), had noticed the following injuries on the person of the deceased.

"External injuries :-

1. Laceration 2/3-4" x 1" cranial cavity deep present transversely on the left temporal parietal region exposing depressed fractures on the skull bones with in driven bony fragment, causing laceration of the brain.

There was operational cut open on the right ankle.

8. On internal examination depressed comminuted fracture of left temporal bone parietal bone and anterior part of occipital bone was found involving 3" x 2/1-2" area. Brain was lacerated and there was generalised sub-dural haemorrhage."

9. He has opined that the injury was ante mortem and caused by heavy penetrating weapon and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the death was due to crania cerebral injury.

10. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the appellant/accused about the nature of injuries found on the deceased and the cause of death.

11. It is the case of the prosecution that the injury was caused by an axe blow with axe Ex. P.1. The accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. has also admitted that this injury was caused by an axe blow though he has pleaded that this blow was not given by him but was given by Ramesh, brother of the deceased who wanted to attack the appellant. but blow missed him and fell on the deceased. P.W. 2 Head Constable Dharamvir Singh has deposed that at about 6.00 p.m. while he was on patrolling duty at Pandav Nagar he had received information of the quarrel and had immediately rushed to the spot where SI Sukhbir Singh met him; he had got recorded the FIR on the basis of rukka based on the statement of Ram Dayal, he was deputed to guard the place of occurrence; in his presence crime team had taken photographs of the scene. He has further deposed that in his presence axe Ex. P.1 and its broken handle Ex. P.2 which were lying at the spot besides blood stained earth etc. were seized by the said SI in sealed parcels after preparing their sketches Exs. P.W. 2/B and P.W. 2/C vide seizure memos P.W. 2/E and P.W. 2/F which are signed by him and that blade of the axe was blood-stained.

12. Ram Dayal, P.W. 6 has also deposed that accused had given forceful blow on the head of his brother with axe Ex. P.1; axe Ex. P.1 and its broken handle Ex. P.2 were seized by the police from the place of occurrence in sealed parcels in his presence. P.W. 8 Constable Bhim Singh had taken photographs of the scene at about 8.30 p.m. on the same evening; in Ex. P.W. 8/D. axe and a handle are shown lying near the blood. P.W. 11 Sub-Inspector Balwant Singh was in charge of the Crime Team, Central District, Delhi has deposed that on receipt of telephonic information from P.S. Patel Nagar he had reached the place of occurrence along with photographer Bhim Singh another staff. He has deposed that on his direction inter alia blood-stained axe Ex. P.1 and its broken handle Ex. P.2 were seized from the spot in his presence. Sketches Ex. PW. 2/A, and Ex. PW. 2/B of that handle and axe and the seizure Memos are signed by him.

13. P.W. 13 Ramesh has also deposed that the fatal blow by accused was given with axe, Ex. P.1 Axe Ex. P.1 and its broken handle Ex. P.2 were seized from the spot. S.I. Sukhbir Singh. P.W. 16 has deposed that on receipt of copy of DD No. 24-A he along with constable Siri Om had reached the spot, he had found lying at the spot when he reached there and from there he had seized axe Ex. P.1 with its broken handle, Ex. P.2 (besides blood-stained earth, blood and the sample earth) after preparing their sketches and seizure memos. In CFSL reports Ex. PW. 16/E, Ex. PW. 16/F and Ex. PW. 16/G, human blood of 'O' group of the deceased has been found an axe Ex. P.1 and its broken handle is Ex. P.2.

14. From this evidence on record it is clearly proved that the fatal injury on the deceased was caused by axe Ex. P.1 and Ex. P.2 is its broken handle. Even otherwise it is not disputed

15. The trial Court has held that it was the appellant who had inflicted the fatal blow with axe Ex. P.1 on the head of the deceased and not inflicted by Ramesh as alleged by the appellant. This finding is being challenged inter alia on the grounds that the three eye witnesses are interested and their testimony ought not to have been believed.

16. P.W. 6 Ram Dayal is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed that he was employed as a sweeper in DDA; on 31-7-1987 at about 5.00 p.m. after completing his duty he came to his house (jhuggi) at Kathputli Colony, he along with his elder brother Ramesh (P.W. 13) and younger brother Ram Sarup, deceased was sitting on a cot near their jhuggi, accused Ram Niwas who lives nearby in front of their jhuggi came out of his jhuggi and started abusing them. He was in drunken condition and said that he was fed up with the daily quarrels with them and on that day he will kill all three of them. They had asked him to desist from abusing them but he went inside his jhuggi, came with an axe towards them and gave a forceful flow with that axe on the head of Ram Sarup who fell down. The handle of the axe had broken. The part of the handle left in his hand was thrown on the ground. The accused ran towards his jhuggi but he fell down after stumbling with stones lying on the way and got some injuries on falling; he had also picked up some stones lying there and struck them on his own face; shortly afterwards police had come there and his statement Ex. P. W. 6/A was recorded. His injured brother and the accused who was also injured were taken to RML Hospital by the police. In his cross-examination presence of PW 6 at the time and place of occurrence has not been disputed. (In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. appellant has stated that both Ram Dayal (P.W. 6) and Ramesh brothers of deceased had given beatings to him at that time). He has stated that they had no quarrel with the accused before this occurrence except quarrels on account of children's quarrels. In his statement-in chief as well as in the FIR he has stated that the accused (before the actual assault) had said that he was fed up with the daily quarrels with them and that he will kill them on that day and had also abused them. In his cross-examination it has been suggested by the accused that he (P.W. 6), and Ramesh had attacked the accused on 4-6-1987, at about 9.40 p.m. when he was taking meals in front of his jhuggi, again they had attacked him and his wife on 5-7-1987 after beating Kishan and Ram Adhar and again on 8-7-1987. Ramesh was in drunken condition and had first attacked Ram Raj and Kishan and thereafter had given beatings to the appellant and his wife at latter's jhuggi and further he had lodged report against Ramesh on 9-7-87 which he denied.

17. Similar suggestions have also been put to P.W. 13 Ramesh which he has also denied. On behalf of the accused copy of the Report mark DZ was produced to show that some quarrel had taken place on 9-7-1987 and report was lodged with police but D.W. 1 SI Chhajju Ram who was working as duty officer at that Police Station has denied that any such complaint was made on 10-7-1987 and also denied that mark 'DZ' bears his signatures. His wife D.W. 2 Smt. Prem Devi has deposed that this complaint was delivered at the police station in her presence, but in view of the statement of D.W. 1 her statement cannot be believed that any such complaint had been lodged with the Police.

18. It appears that there were strained relations between the parties before the occurrence. However, no independent witness has been examined to show that Ramesh or Ram Dayal were desperate persons or had given beatings to the accused or his wife or children or to Kishan, Ram Adhar and or Ram Raj. Had Ramesh been so desperate a person, and wielded an axe perhaps he would not have spared him after the accused had given a fatal axe blow on the head of their younger brother in their presence and the accused was available there whereas in his MLC Ex. PW. 12/B simple injuries caused by blunt weapon, only have been found on his face, which according to PW. 6 and PW. 6 and PW 13 were caused by a fall on stumbling with stones and partly were self inflicted.

19. The specific defense put to P.W. 6 which he has denied is as under :-

"It is wrong to suggest that on the day of occurrence Ramesh was in drunken condition or that on seeing the accused he started abusing the accused or that the accused had made entreaties to Ramesh to know what was his fault. It is incorrect that Ramesh had abused the accused and the accused in relation abused Ramesh. It is incorrect to suggest that Ram Sarup had caught hold of accused and Ramesh had tried to give axe blow to the accused or accused bent down and that blow fell on the head of the deceased. It is incorrect to suggest that thereafter we gave stone blows to the accused repeatedly ...."

This is also the plea taken in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. This plea has not been accepted by the trial Court.

20. The time of occurrence is at about 6.05 p.m. when DD entry No. 24-A about quarrel was recorded at the police station; on receipt of its copy SI Sukhbir Singh had reached the spot; he had sent the two injured persons lying there to the hospital through constable Sree Om. Deceased Ram Sarup was examined in the hospital vide MLC. Ex. P.W. 12/A at 6.30 p.m. SI Sukhbir Singh had recorded the first information statement of Ram Dayal. P.W. 6 which he forwarded for registration of the FIR at about 7.00 p.m. through Head Constable Dharamvir Singh P.W. 1 SI Chajju Ram who was working as Duty officer at P.S. Patel Nagar on that day has deposed that at about 7.10 p.m. Head Constable Dharamvir Singh brought a rukka sent by Sukhbir Singh S.I. and on the basis of that rukka he recorded the formal FIR No. 278/87 (Ex. P.W. 1/B). He was not cross examined to show that the FIR was not recorded at 7.10 p.m. This shows that the FIR was lodged promptly without any delay whatsoever. There would have been no occasion for fabrication or concoction. In this FIR also it is clearly mentioned that the accused was in drunken condition, first he started abusing the three brothers, then brought the axe from his jhuggi and gave axe blow on the head of the deceased. This FIR corroborates the testimony of P.W. 6 No suggestion has been put to P.W. 6 and P.W. 13 as to what was the immediate cause or provocation which impelled Ramesh to have given axe blow to the accused nor as to how and where from Ramesh came in possession of the axe all of a sudden. In his MLC P.W. 12/B at 6.45 p.m. the appellant was found smelling alcohol. This circumstances also corroborates P.W. 6. There would have been no occasion for Ramesh P.W. 13 having wielded an axe for no valid reasons. Site plan Ex. P.W. 16/A shows that the occurrence had taken place near the western side of the jhuggi of deceased whereas the jhuggi of the appellant is on the northern side and in front of Jhuggis of PW 6 and PW 13. The appellant obviously had gone to the place of occurrence near the Jhuggis of PW-13 to attack the three brother of the complainant party. When relations between the complainant party and accused were strained and if Ramesh was calling abused to him and was also armed with an axe, the appellant would not have dared to go near Ramesh unarmed and retaliated by counter abuses. In site plan Ex. PQ. 16/A appellant was found lying nearer to his Jhuggi and away from the place of occurrence. Obviously, he had run away from the place of actual assault. The version of P.W. 6 about the origin and of actual occurrence that it was the accused who was in drunken condition and was aggressor, brought axe Ex. P.1 from his Jhuggi and had assaulted the deceased with it is trustworthy. It may be mentioned that wife of the appellant had appeared as D.W. 2. Even she has not come with the plea that axe Ex. P.1 did not belong to them. PW 13 his brother has corroborated PW 6. The trial Court has believed the testimony of P.W. 6 and P.W. 13 and disbelieved the defense plea. There is no infirmity in this finding which is reasonable and justified.

21. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that Chiranji Lal, P.W. 7 is not a natural and independent witness, he would not have been present at the time and place of occurrence and his name also does not find mention in the FIR lodged by P.W. 6 Ram Dayal; he has been falsely introduced as a witness and the trial Court was wrongly placed reliance on him.

22. Name of Chiranji Lal does not find mention in the FIR Ex. P.W. 6/A. He is a resident of E-6, New Ranjit Nagar, Delhi and was working as Beldar in DDA. His working hours were from 9 am to 5.30 pm. He has deposed that on the day of occurrence he had gone to Kathputli Colony for some personal work and when he reached near the Jhuggi of Ram Sarup, Ram Niwas was abusing him and Ram Sarup and Ramesh were sitting on the cot in front of their Jhuggi; Ram Niwas accused was under the influence of liquor and was abusing Ram Sarup; Ram Sarup and Ramesh had asked Ram Niwas not to give abuses and then Ram Niwas ran towards his Jhuggi and from his Jhuggi brought an axe and gave a blow with that axe on the head of Ram Sarup. After that he had gone to attend some urgent work but had come again at the spot at about 10.15 p.m. when his statement was recorded by the police. In cross-examination he has stated that he had gone to see his friend Ramesh in Pandav Nagar, who works in some bank, but he did not know his house number and name and branch of his Bank or the distance between house of this friend Ramesh and place of occurrence. He has also stated that his duty hours were from 9.00 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. but on that day he had come from his office earlier without, giving any intimation to any of his superior officer though he was bound to give information to his mate and the said mate was also bound to write down such intimation in a register. He had stated that accused person had given abuses to Ram Sarup for five minutes in his presence and he kept on standing at some distance. He did not intervene though he states that he knew both parties as they belong to his community; He had not waited for the arrival of the police. He then stated that he was to take his child Manoj to a doctor for getting medicines but he did not know even the name and the shop number of that doctor nor could he produce the patient's slip issued by the doctor in spite of the fact that an adjournment was taken by him for this purpose. He has also stated that he had again bone to the spot in the night at about 10.15 p.m. of his own when his statement was recorded by the police. In his cross-examination he has also admitted that Ram Dayal and Ramesh belong to his caste and both of them were working in the DDA office as sweepers where he is also working.

23. P.W. 13 on the other hand has deposed that he knew Chiranji Lal for the last 8-10 years and Chiranji Lal was present at the time of occurrence, he went away after making statement but came back after half an hour. He has denied the suggestion that Chiranji Lal had come at 10.45 p.m. and thereafter his statement was recorded. On this aspect he does not corroborate Chiranji Lal. P.W. 6 has not stated if Chiranji Lal was present at the time of occurrence. Rather he has stated that some persons and ladies had collected there but he did not know their names. If Chiranji Lal was present who knew the three brothers, it cannot be believed that his presence would not have been noticed by P.W. 6 whom he also knew earlier.

24. Chiranji Lal is a chance witness. His presence at the time and place of occurrence is not satisfactorily explained, his testimony does not inspire confidence. He was known to P.W. 6 and P.W. 13 since long but his name is not mentioned in the FIR as a witness of occurrence. There are contradictions in his statement and that of P.W. 13 which also make his testimony on this aspect unreliable. In the circumstances the trial Court was not justified in placing reliance on the testimony of PW 7.

25. However, even after excluding his testimony from consideration we do not find any infirmity or valid reasons to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws. 6 and 13 about the manner of occurrence as stated by them.

26. It is then contended that no motive on the part of the appellant for committing this crime has been proved which renders prosecution case doubtful and this circumstance has been ignored by the Trial Court. Reliance has been placed on Tarsem Kumar v. Delhi Admn. 1995 Cri LJ 470 (SC).

27. In Tarsem Kumar's case it has been held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance. Of course, if each of the circumstances proved on behalf of prosecution is accepted by the Court for the purpose of recording a finding that it was the accused who committed the crime in question even in the absence of a motive for commission of such a crime, the accused can be convicted. This case related to a case based on circumstantial evidence. It does not lay down the law that absence of proof of motive would be fatal in all the circumstances.

28. In Narain Nath Naik v. State of Maharashtra it was held that if the Court is satisfied about the accused being the assailant of victim it need not consider the question of motive. Again in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bogam Chandraiah it was reiterated that when there is direct evidence of an acceptable nature regarding commission of an offence, the question of motive cannot loom large in the mind of the Court.

Motive is generally known to the perpetrator of the crime and is not always known to others. In the present case testimony of two eye witnesses PW 6 and PW 13 has been found trustworthy. Moreover, it is also shown that relations between the parties were strained which obviously gave rise to this crime.

29. It is also contended that the finger prints available on the handle of the axe have not been lifted which would have established the authorship of the person who inflicted the fatal blow. This shows that the investigations is not fair.

30. PW 11 SI Balbir Singh, in charge of Crime Team, who reached the spot in cross-examination has given the explanation that he did not take the finger prints as the handle of the axe was round shaped and the surface of the handle was rough and so it was not possible to have the finger prints. This explanation has not been further challenged in his cross-examination. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the investigating agency had acted unfairly or in a partisan manner on this count.

31. It is then contended that no neighbour or independent witness has been examined by the prosecution.

32. In this case PW 16 SI Sukhbir Singh has stated that there were about 1000 Jhuggis at the places of occurrence and he had asked public witnesses/persons who might have seen the occurrence to come forward but nobody responded : public apathy showing unconcern in such cases is well known. Sometimes, desperate criminal tendency of the accused also is a factor which discourages a common man to come forward to depose against such person. This possibility cannot be ruled out in present case where for no valid reasons a teenaged boy has been butchered with an axe. Prosecution case cannot be thrown away for this reason alone.

33. It is also contended that no person from the family of the deceased and even PW 6 and PW 13 had accompanied the injured to the Hospital which renders the case and testimony of the eye witnesses doubtful.

34. As already noticed presence of PW 6 and PW 13 two brothers of the deceased at the time and place of occurrence is not challenged. PW 3 Constable Sri Om has deposed that he had taken both the injured, i.e., deceased and the accused in Taxi to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. In that case it would not have been safe for him to have taken PW 6 or PW 13 or any other person with him in the same Taxi. it is not the case that no relation of the injured had followed or gone to the Hospital. PW 13 in cross-examination has stated that Ram Dayal (PW 6) had come back from the Hospital after half an hour.

35. It is then contended that the injuries found on the person of the appellant have not been explained and this circumstance makes one prosecution case untrustworthy. Reliance has been placed on Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar .

36. Whereas learned counsel for the State has contended that it is not invariable rule that the prosecution case is false if injuries found on the person of the accused are not explained, it depends on facts of each case.

37. In Lakshmi Singh's case earlier case of Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar was followed. In both these cases on consideration of evidence, the prosecution cases and the eye witnesses were disbelieved. Both these cases and a number of other cases having bearing on the point were noticed in Hare Krishana Singh v. State of Bihar , and in para 18 it was held as under :-

"18. We have referred to the, above decisions in extenso in order to consider whether it is an invariable proposition of law that the prosecution is obliged to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence and whether failure of the prosecution to so explain the injuries on the person of the accused would mean that the prosecution has suppressed the truth and also the genesis or origin of the occurrence. Upon a conspectus of the decisions mentioned above, we are of the view that the question as to the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise in each and every case. In other words, it is not an invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is undoubtedly on the prosecution. The accused is not but to say anything in defense. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. If the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the Court in proof of the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, the question of the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and in what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused."

38. In Bhagwan v. State of Maharashtra also it was held that there is no hard and fast rule that simply because the prosecution witnesses did not explain the injuries on the person of the accused their entire evidence should he discarded. In the present case the injuries found on the person of appellant were simple caused by blunt weapon and explanation has been given by PW 6 and PW 13 how he had suffered these injuries. In the presence of fatal axe blow on their brother PW 6 and PW 13 would not have spared him with such light punishment it they really wanted to take law in their hands. In the circumstances, this circumstance is not of any help to the appellant. We, hence come to the conclusion that the trial Court was right in bringing home the offence to the appellant beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.

No other point has been urged.

39. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed.

40. Appeal dismissed.