SHARMA, J. - (1.) SONU @ Raghuvendra, the appellant herein, was put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar, who vide judgment dated October 5, 2001 convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) A written report (Ex. P. 8) was submitted at Government Hospital Alwar to the SHO Police Station Aravali Vihar Alwar by informant Bhagwan (PW. 5) on April 4, 2000 at 9. 30 PM stating therein that Sonu (appellant) caused knife injuries on the person of Babu Lal (since deceased), who was admitted to the hospital. On that report case under Section 324/307 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During treatment Babu Lal succumbed to his injuries and case was converted into one under Section 302 IPC. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast track) Alwar. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 19 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material on record. A look at the record goes to show that prior to his death the injuries received by Babu Lal were examined vide injury report (Ex. P. 17), which were as under:- 1. Incised wound 2 x 1/2 cm x MD on lateral end of Lt. eye wall with clean cut edges fresh oozing of blood. 2. Incised wound 2 x 1 to 1/4 cm x MD on Lt. arm lower 1/3 Ant. ozzing of blood. 3. Stab wound 3 x 2 cm x chest cavity deep on Lt. upper lateral part of chest below shoulder joint with lower and obtuse upon an acute oozing of blood with sufficient emphysia. 4. Oblique stab sound 2 x 1. 5 x bone deep on Rt. side inter scapular area lower part end obtuse & upper acute with oozing of blood. 5. Oblique incised wound 2. 5 x 1cm x bone deep on Rt. side lower back with oozing of blood. 6. Stab wound 4 x 2. 5 cm x bone deep on Rt. thigh mid 1/3 Ant. Lower aspect with outer end obtuse inner and acute with oozing of blood. 7. Incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm x SC Rt. scapular upper 8. Incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm x SD Lt. forehead lat. 9. Trans, incised wound 2. 5 x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on Lt. infra axillary area mid part with profuse bleeding. After the death the dead body of Babu Lal was subjected to autopsy by Dr. B. L. Meena (PW. 17) and as per post mortem report (Ex. P. 18) the cause of death was hemmorhagic shock as a result of ante mortem injuries. The prosecution case is founded on the testimony of Sushila (PW. 4) and Phoolwati (PW. 5), who in their deposition stated that they saw the appellant inflicting knife blows on the person of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the statements of these witnesses and urged that Sushila being the sister and Phoolwati being the mother of deceased are interested witnesses and their evidence could not have been relied upon. According to learned counsel these witnesses were not present at the time of incident and they had not seen the incident. We find ourselves unable to agree with the submissions of learned counsel. Having carefully tested the testimony of Sushila and Phoolwati from the point of view of trustworthiness we do not see any material discrepancies in it. It is well settled that when ocular evidence is cogent, credible and trustworthy, minor variance, if any, is not of any consequence. The Apex Court in Krishnan vs. State (2003) 7 SCC 56, indicated that witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice. Eye witness account would required a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and inherent probability of the story. In the instant case testimony of Sushila and Phoolwati could not be shattered in the cross examination. They both had explained that on hearing that Sonu attacked with knife on Babu Lal when they rushed to the spot they saw Sonu inflicting another blow with knife on the person of Babu Lal. Their evidence is cogent and consistent and we see no reason to disbelieve it.
(3.) THE eye witness account of Sushila and Phoolwati gets further corroboration from the recovery of knife stained with human blood at the instance of the appellant. In our opinion the learned trial Court has dealt with the intrinsic merit of the evidence of the witnesses. Facts of Nain Singh vs. State of UP (1991 SCC (Cri.) 421), Ram Kumar Pande vs. THE State of MP (AIR 1975 SC 1026) and Shankar Lal vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1981 SC 765) on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable and do not provide any help to the appellant. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same stands accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to appellant under Section 302 IPC are confirmed. .;