Amol Rattan Singh, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by one Raju @ Raja @ Dadu son of Dandia, aged about 20 years, labourer, permanent resident of Suraunde, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), who has been convicted under Sections 302 /201 IPC, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide his judgment dated 12.12.2007. Vide order dated 13.12.2007, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of which, he is to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months, for an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. For the offence punishable u/s 201 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of which he is to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The facts of the case are as under:-

One Joginder Singh son of Kewal Singh resident of Gobindpur, P.S. Kotwali, Kapurthala, aged 40 years, reported to Sub Inspector Charanjit Singh, in the presence of ASI Jagjit Singh, Head-constables Pargat Singh, Kartar Singh and Sardool Singh and PHG Balkar Singh, when they were stated to be on patrol duty in a government vehicle, that he (Joginder Singh) is an agriculturist, residing at his own house in his field of 4 acres of land, which is in the name of his father and falls on both sides of the road which leads from Gobindpur and Gopipur. On the said road, there is a minor bridge, under which a water canal/channel is made. At about 2.30/3.00 p.m. when he was irrigating his field, he saw, on the eastern side of the pulley (minor bridge), a heavy gunny bag, which was tied and a bad smell was coming out of it. He discovered the headless dead body of a male in a decomposed state, with maggots moving on it. Apparently, the person had been murdered and the body thrown in his field. He further stated that he had left his cousin at the spot and went to report the matter to the police, when he met the police party and requested that action be taken by them.

2. The said statement was sent by the Sub Inspector to the Police Station through Head constable Kartar Singh after which an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, on the same day, i.e. 01.08.2006 at 4.55 p.m. and the special report was sent.

3. On the same day, Sub Inspector Charanjit Singh, in the presence of Head Constables Pargat Singh and Kartar Singh, all of PS Kotwali, Kapurthala, and the complainant, Joginder Singh, recovered the gunny bag in which the dead body of an unknown person, without the head, was kept. From the right pocket of the pant of deceased, one green coloured hanky was recovered, with the letter C and a flowery pattern on it, on the corner of which, the word, another word, was printed. (The above narration of facts has been taken from the original recovery memo, Ex. PB, written in vernacular, as there is a discrepancy in the translated version).

The articles were taken into possession and a recovery memo made. A parcel of the gunny bag and hanky was prepared, sealed and handed over to Head Constable Pargat Singh. The dead body was sent to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Kapurthala, along with an application, Ex. PC/2, under the signatures of Sub Inspector Charanjit Singh and other members of the police party, with the request that the post mortem be conducted and cause of death be intimated and, for identification of the dead body, thumb marks etc. be also taken and it be also intimated as to how the neck of the dead body was cut. It was also requested that the length of the body be intimated. A sample for DNA examination was also requested to be taken. The application also stated that it be intimated whether the neck was cut before or after death.

At the time of recovery of the dead body on 1.8.2006, photographs were also taken at the spot, which were subsequently developed and produced, along with negatives, on 03.08.2006.

4. After the post mortem, it was revealed that the headless body was that of an unknown male aged between 20-30 years. The following wounds were noted on the body:-

1. 14 x 13 cm incised wound was present all over the neck at the level of C7 resulting in severance of neck. No infiltration was present. No clotted blood was present. Cut bones also did not show any infiltration.

2. 11 x 3 cm x bone deep incised wound was present on front of right knee. No infiltration and clotted blood was present.

3. 9 x 2 cm x bone deep incised wound was present on front of right knee. 1 cm above injury no. 2. No infiltration and no clotted blood was present.

4. 8 x 3 cm x bone deep incised wound was present on front of left knee almost in the middle. No infiltration and no clotted blood was present.

5. 6 x 3 cm x bone deep incised wound was present on front of left knee. 1 cm above injury no. 4 No infiltration and no clotted blood was present.

6. 12 x 8 cm reddish blue bruise was present on top of right shoulder. On dissection infiltration was present in the surrounding tissue with fracture of lateral end of right clavicle. Infiltration was present over the fracture ends.

7. 6 x 5 cm reddish blue bruise was present on front of right side of chest, 3 cm away from right nipple at 8 O clock position. On dissection, underlying seventh rib was found fractured and the underlying lungs showed laceration. The stomach showed putrefactive changes with 50 MLs of dark coloured semi solid paste like material. Liver spleen and kidneys were dark colour and showed putrefactive changes.

The Doctor declared that the first five injuries were post mortem in nature and injures No. 6 and 7 were ante mortem.

The length of the body was 52" and it was opined that the injuries has been caused by a sharp edged weapon, with the probable time between injury and death being about a few minutes to few hours and between death and post mortem, about 2 to 4 days.

5. Investigating Officer, SI Charanjit Singh, after sending the dead body for post mortem is stated to have proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan and report. During the course of the post mortem, two keys with key chain, were also stated to have been recovered from the pocket of the pants of the deceased.

6. On 3.8.2006, the body was identified by the clothes on it, by one Ramesh Kumar son of Sarwan Yadav, then resident of Parvej Nagar, Kapurthala, as that of his brother Raju, son of Sarwan. The said Ramesh Kumar (later produced as PW-19) also stated that his deceased brother was employed as a servant with one Jagtar Singh. The said identification is stated to have been made in the presence of Head Constable Pargat Singh and MHC Nirmal Singh.

7. On 04.08.2006, one Balwinder Singh made a statement before the police that on 27.06.2007, at about 10 p.m., when he was going to his field, he saw Raju accused, servant of his uncle Pritam Singh, along with Raju deceased, standing near the tubewell of Pritam Singh. Thereafter, both of them went towards the cremation ground of village Adnawali and at that time, the accused was carrying a dang (stick). The deceased seemed to be under the influence of liquor. Balwinder Singh further stated that after some time, both these persons had quarreled with each other and he had seen Pritam Singhs servant, (Raju), hitting the deceased with a stick and that then Raju fell down. However, he (Balwinder Singh), had gone to Haridwar on 29.07.2006 and upon his return from there, he came to know of the incident and reported what he had earlier seen.

The prosecution story further is that, on 05.08.2006, ASI Charanjit Singh along with Balwinder Singh and Jagjit Singh, were present at the bus adda Adnawali, when the accused Raju was seen coming and, on pointing out by Joginder Singh, he was apprehended. His personal search was conducted and memo was prepared and information was also sent to his employer, Gurdev Singh. The accused is stated to have suffered a disclosure statement and got recovered a dattar (sickle) and a dang (stick) allegedly used in the commission of the crime, along with a piece of gunny bag. He gave his name as Raju @ Raja @ Dadu son of Dandia, aged about 20 years, labourer, (permanent) resident of Suraunde, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). The statement is said to have been made before the Investigating Officer, in the presence of ASI Jagjit Singh and Head Constable Balwinder Singh.

8. He stated that Raju son of Sarwan Yadav, resident of Ladhugarh, Police Station Janki Nagar, District Purnia, Bihar, was his best friend with whom he used to see TV and they used to eat and drink together and that he also had money dealing with him. As per his statement, he was to get Rs. 15,000/- from him and when he demanded the money, on 28.07.2006, the said (other) Raju, deceased, threatened to kill him. On this, the accused got ill tempered and took him away to his motor, after giving him liquor. There, he gave him a blow with a dang on his head and killed him and kept his dead body in the cremation ground and, on the next day, he cut his head and buried it in the cremation ground. He put the rest of the body in a gunny bag and during the night, took it with him and threw it into the water near the Gobindpur-Gopipur road. To ensure that the body was not identified, he took off the shirt. He also disclosed that he had kept concealed the said dang and dattar and shirt and would get them recovered from the place he knew that they were kept.

Thereafter, on the same day (05.08.2006), the accused is stated to have got recovered the head of a human being, one shirt and one dattar stated to be used at the time of murder, from the cremation ground, in the presence of the Illaqa Magistrate and the Govt. Doctor, from the thorn bushes (sarkanda) growing on the nala (drain). One dang (stick) were also got recovered, from the Safeda (eucalyptus) tree alongwith one piece of gunny bag.

9. A video film of the recovery was also made. A report from the doctor was obtained with regard to the human head and a search plan of the area as also the rough sketch of the weapons is stated to have been prepared. On the same day, a cycle (make Hero Jet), used to take the body away, as also a reverse spade (kahi), were got recovered by the accused, from the motor (tubewell) of Gurdev Singh. A recovery memo of the kahi and cycle was also prepared.

10. On completion of investigation, the challan was presented against the accused on 3.10.2006. The accused was put to an ossification test, in view of the fact that he appeared to be a juvenile; but on result of the test, he was held to be approximately 20 years of age and therefore, a major at the time of offence. Charge under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was prepared, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

11. Of the witnesses who deposed before the trial court, the significant ones are being discussed.

12. PW1 Jagtar Singh, stated before the trial court that he was an agriculturist and was also running an Auto three-wheeler. He identified the accused, Raju, in court. He disclosed that he was servant to Pritam Singh, in his village, Parvej Nagar. He further testified that the deceased Raju was his servant and used to help him in agricultural work. He further stated that the deceased used to sleep at his tubewell. On 28.7.2006, he (deceased) went at about 9 p.m., after taking his meal, to sleep at the motor, as usual, but did not return the next day, i.e. 29.7.2006, in the morning, as he usually did. This witness further stated that he made a search of the deceased and then asked other persons with regard to his whereabouts, but could not trace him. He also stated that he asked the accused in this regard, also.

Thereafter, he stated that, on 02.08.2006 at 7 pm, the accused came to his house and told him that he had murdered the deceased, Raju, on account of the fact that the deceased owed him Rs. 15,000/-. He also stated that the police had come to know that he had murdered the deceased and he requested that he be produced before the police. He further stated that the murder had been committed after taking liquor and the body had been kept concealed in the bushes and thereafter, on the next day, he chopped the head from the body and put the body in a bag and threw it near the minor bridge (pulley), in the area of Basti Gobindpur. This witness further stated that he told the accused to come to him on the next day but he did not turn up.

In his cross examination, he stated that he had not disclose about the confession made to him by the accused, to anybody, but had simply told him to come on the next day. He also stated that Joginder Singh (complainant) in this case, though belonging to the same village, did not tell him anything about this case between 28.7.2006 to 3.8.2006. He further stated that up till 3.8.2006, he did not know that the dead body has been recovered, the reason being that the tubewell of Joginder Singh was on the other side of the village from his own house. He stated that he met the police officials at the bus stop, on 3.8.2006, from where he accompanied the police party to the tubewell of Pritam Singh and the accused was arrested there. According to him, the head of the dead body was then recovered by the police on 4.8.2006 in his presence. (Initially he said that the tubewell was Gurdev Singhs, but later he corrected himself to say that it was Pritam Singhs. As per his testimony, Gurdev Singh is son of Pritam Singh)

13. PW-2, Balwinder Singh son of Mohinder Singh, aged 37 years, agriculturist, resident of Parvej Nagar, Kapurthala, stated that he is a taxi driver, running a taxi stand and also owns agricultural land at village Adnawali. He stated that on 28.7.2006, at about 10 pm., when he was going to his motor (tubewell), the accused, who was his uncles (Pritam Singhs) servant, and the deceased who was servant with Jagtar Singh (PW-1), was standing near the motor of Pritam Singh, both went towards the cremation ground. The accused was having a dang in his hand and apparently was under the influence of liquor. He further stated that he saw the accused causing injuries to Raju (deceased). However, he did not interfere and came back to the village taking the problem to be their own. He further deposed that he went to Haridwar, taking passengers in his taxi and returned on 3.8.2006 at about 10 p.m. He did not disclose the incident to anybody prior to that. On 4.8.2006, he went to his motor and on the way back, he was accosted by the police and asked about the murder of Raju. Upon this, he narrated the incident regarding beating of the deceased, by the accused, on 28.7.2006. He further deposed that he recognised the accused and deceased because of the electric light on the motor of Pritam Singh at the place, where they were standing. He could not disclose the name or the address of the passengers that he had taken to Haridwar in his taxi.

14. PW-3, the complainant, Joginder Singh, aged 43 years, from whose field the headless body was discovered, stated that he had found the gunny bag near the pulley with some maggots coming out from it and a foul smell being emitted from it. He called his cousin, Sukhdev, and together they opened the bag and found the headless dead body. Thereafter, after leaving his cousin at the spot, he went to report the matter. In his cross-examination, he simply stated that he had no knowledge of the case and as to whose dead body it was.

15. The next witness was Dr. Gur Iqbal Singh, PW4, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body, the details of which have already been given. He further deposed that, on 5.8.2006, on the request of Sub Inspector Charanjit Singh and order of his SMO, he accompanied the police party, along with Tehsildar Manjit Singh, to the fields of village Adnawali, Parvej Nagar, at 1.30 p.m. Fragmentary remains of the decapitated head and neck were excavated, from a pit dug in the earth and covered by mud. It was a male head with maggots on the head and neck. It had a trimmed black moustache and beard but the facial features were disfigured. The head was severed from the rest of the body at the level of C7 vertebrae with no infiltration present in the surrounding tissues. He further disclosed that the accused was also present in the police party and that the head was recovered at the instance of the accused. In cross examination, he stated that he could not say whether the head and the body was of the same person upon whose body he had conducted the post mortem on 2.8.2006. He conducted a post mortem on the head and, on dissection of the skull, the occipital bone was found fractured.

16. PW-5, Sukhjinder Singh, aged 27 years, corroborated the statement of the complainant, Joginder Singh, with regard to the discovery of the gunny bag and headless dead body on 1.4.2006. He also, on cross examination, stated that he did not know, till date, as to whose dead body it was.

17. PW-6, Amrit Lal, was the supervisor of the municipal council, under whose supervision, the headless dead body was cremated on 2.8.2006, after the post mortem, on an application made by the police to the Executive Officer of the municipal council.

18. PW-7, Gurdev Singh was the employer of the accused, who stated that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased Raju, as there was some money dispute between the deceased and the accused; though, in his cross-examination, he stated that the deceased had never disclosed anything to him with regard to the money dispute. A question was also put to him as to whether he had knowledge of any dispute between Jagtar Singh and his servant (deceased), or whether there was any connection or relation of the female family members of Jagtar Singh with the deceased servant. He denied knowledge of any such thing. (This witness was the son of Pritam Singh; hence, the accused was servant to both, father and son).

19. PW-10, Ramesh Kumar, is brother of the deceased who identified the body of the deceased from the clothes and corroborated that the clothes which were produced in the court were the same. In cross-examination, he stated that he and his brother were both working in the village for the last about 2 years. He further stated that photographs (Ex. A, B and C) were seen by him for the first time in Court. Though he had identified the clothes during his examination in chief, he admitted that the clothes which were shown to him in court are easily available in the market and there is no special mark on the clothes.

20. The Investigation Officer, SI Charanjit Singh, was examined as PW-11 and he gave the detail of the sequence of events of the investigation, and also stated that the deceased had been identified by his brother, through the clothes and keys shown to him. In cross-examination, he admitted that when the head was recovered, the brother of the deceased was not summoned by him. According to him, the skin of the face was totally eaten up by maggots and as such, the head was not identifiable.

21. PW12, ASI Jagjit Singh, stated that he had accompanied PW11, Charanjit Singh, along with others police officials, in the area of village Adnawali on 05.08.2006 when the accused was arrested by the Investigating Officer and was, thereafter, interrogated.

He further stated that the accused had disclosed that he had cut the head from the body of the deceased and had buried it in the ground, in the cremation ground of Adnawali and that the headless body was put into a gunny bag and was thrown near the small bridge of a drain, on the Gopipur-Gobindpur road.

He further stated that the accused (appellant) disclosed that the head of the deceased, as well as the dang (stick) and dattar (sickle), with which the accused had caused injuries to the deceased, can also be got recovered from the cremation ground of village Adnawali. The consent memo (Ex. PQ), was also recorded in his presence and attested by him, along with one Head Constable.

Thereafter, the accused was put in his custody and after sometime the Investigating Officer, along with the Tehsildar and the Doctor (PWs 11, 13 and 4 respectively), came there and the accused, thereafter got recovered the head of the deceased, along with the dattar, dang and gunny bag, from the place that he had disclosed, i.e., the cremation ground. The accused had also got recovered the kahi (reverse spade) and cycle in his presence and in the presence of Head Constable Balwinder Singh.

Nothing significant is recorded in his cross-examination.

22. PW-13, Manjit Singh, was the Tehsildar posted at Kapurthala, on 5.8.2006. As Duty Magistrate, he had accompanied the police party to the cremation ground from where the head of the deceased was recovered. He deposed with regard to the same and corroborated the presence of Dr. Gur Iqbal Singh (PW-4) at the spot. He also identified the dattar, dang, and piece of gunny bag as the same as those that were recovered from the cremation ground on the same day. He also stated that recovery of the head and articles, was videographed and the same was attested by the accused. Nothing in his cross-examination belies his statement given in examination in chief.

23. Head constable Pargat Singh, who was witness to the recovery of the headless dead body and the contents of the clothes therein, as also to the post mortem proceedings, was examined as PW-16. He withstood the test of cross examination.

24. Head Constable Charanjit Singh, PW18, stated to the effect that he was present along with the Duty Magistrate, Doctor and other police officials, at the time of recovery of the head from the cremation ground of village Adnawali and that he had done the video recording of the recovery. He identified the accused person in Court and stated that the accused had got the head of the deceased recovered, after leading the police party in accordance with his confessional statement, and had also got recovered the weapons used in the commission of the offence.

The CDs of the video recording in the court could not be displayed on the date of examination of this witness, and a request was made for subsequent production of the original CDs.

Thereafter, this witness was recalled for further examination and he, along with another constable, came with a VCD player and TV set. The CDs were then ordered to be played in the (trial) court, in the presence of witnesses, after which the CDs were ordered to be sealed and placed on record of the case, by the learned Sessions Judge.

25. Though the original CD is also present along with the record, in this Court, however, we have seen that the same is now not playable. In these circumstances the judgment of the learned trial court, with regard to the contents of the CD and photographs, has been seen by us, wherein it is recorded, in para 17, that they, "certainly to some extent reveal the physical attributes of the dead body".

However, as we shall examine further, the videography is only an additional piece of evidence and our conclusion would not hinge simply on that.

26. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., apart from the usual denials, nothing significant was stated by the accused, except to say that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.

27. Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are completely inconsistent and, further, the behaviour of the villagers who appeared as prosecution witnesses, is also extremely unnatural. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3, i.e. Jagtar Singh, Balwinder Singh and Joginder Singh, respectively. He has pointed out that the reaction of PW1, Jagtar Singh, to the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused before him, is a complete concoction, inasmuch as, it would be strange for this witness to have heard the confession about the murder of his servant and not acted upon it in any manner whatsoever. As regards PW2, learned counsel has submitted that his behaviour in not taking any action, firstly, to stop the fight between the accused and the deceased, if at all he saw it, was extremely irrational and secondly, non-reporting of the incident (fight) to anybody at all, was also completely unnatural. Mr. Sachdeva has further submitted that the discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, with regard to the date and place of arrest of the accused, further belly the prosecution version and, as such, it is apparent that the appellant has been framed. He further submitted that in view of the fact, that the head, though is alleged to have been recovered at the hands of the accused, was neither identified by the brother of the deceased, or by anyone else, further puts a nail in the coffin of the case of the prosecution. He, therefore, submitted that the entire case being a frame up, the appeal should be allowed and the appellants conviction by the trial court, under Sections 302 /201 IPC, be set aside.

28. Ms. Ritu Punj, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on the other hand, has argued that neither the extra judicial confession was unnatural from a man who had done a dastardly act for which he repented later, nor was the behaviour of the witnesses so strange as to demolish the prosecution case. Her argument is that, in fact, the behaviour of the witnesses, including PW1 Jagtar Singh and PW2 Balwinder Singh, was a matter of natural human reaction and further goes to prove the credibility of the witnesses, inasmuch as, they stated the truth as they knew it, including their own reaction at a given point of time. She has further argued that recovery of the head of the deceased from the cremation ground, at the instance of the appellant, is fatal to his case and just because the head could not be clearly recognized, in view of the recovery having been made after 6-7 days of it having been imbedded in the ground, leading to putrefaction and attack by maggots, did not mean that it was the head of somebody else, except the deceased. In the light of the fact that the deceased was missing and it was the accused who led the police party, including the Duty Magistrate and the Doctor, to the spot where he had buried the head, the recovery of weapons of offence, i.e. the dang and the sickle (dattar) at the spot, and subsequent recovery of the bicycle and the spade (kahi), again at the hands of the appellant, all these facts, seen together with the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, lead to an unrebuttable conclusion establishing the guilt of the appellant.

29. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appraising the entire evidence in detail, we have no manner of doubt in our mind that the appellant, Raju, committed the murder of the deceased, (also Raju), by hitting him on his head and chest and thereafter decapitating the head from the body and concealing and disposing of each of the two body parts, in the manner already described hereinbefore.

30. No doubt, it is at first difficult to believe that when an extra judicial confession was made by the accused to PW1, who was employer of the deceased, he did not act upon it at all, inasmuch as, first he simply told the accused to come the next day and when he did not do so, he neither complained to the police nor spoke about it to any of his co-villagers, including the Sarpanch and other Panchayat members. It is also, no doubt, strange that the complainant, Joginder Singh, who appeared as PW3, in his cross-examination, stated that he had no knowledge till date, as to whose dead body he had discovered in his field, upon which he had made a complaint. This is especially so because, in a village, normally a murder and discovery of a body would usually be discussed among villagers, especially in the light of the fact that a servant was also missing from the village. It is, therefore, odd that the employer and the complainant never discussed the case with each other. Of course, it is equally possible, that the complainant could be a complete simpleton and had left the matter at that, after having reported discovery of the headless body to the police. However, either way, it would eventually make no material difference, as such, to the case, in our opinion. In our opinion, recovery of the head at the instance of the accused, in the presence of a Magistrate and a Doctor, is clincher evidence against the accused. Further, it is not believable that the investigating agency went to the extent of fraudulently preparing a videographed recording of a human head and some articles, in the presence of a Doctor and an Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar), and the accused, only to falsely implicate the appellant, with no motive whatsoever, for the same.

31. Further, the behaviour of Balwinder Singh (PW2), who stated that he last seen the accused and the deceased together and saw the accused hitting injuries to the deceased, though seemingly very strange at first blush, can be explained by his statement that he did not want to interfere in a fight which was a problem between two antagonists. Of course, this could only be a partial truth and, factually, seeing the nature of injuries being caused by the accused, he may have desisted from interfering in the fight, out of fear, especially as he saw the accused in a drunken state. His reaction would not be against the normal self preservation instinct of a human being. Though, no doubt, he should have reported the matter, either to the village Sarpanch or to the police, his explanation for the same, that the incident took place at about 10.00 p.m. and the next morning he went out of station in connection with his business of taxi driving to Haridwar, is plausible enough to be accepted.

32. There is also a discrepancy with regard to the manner of arrest of the accused, to the extent that PW1, in cross-examination, stated that he accompanied the police party on 03.08.2006 to the tubewell of Pritam Singh and the accused was arrested by the police in his presence, at 11.00 a.m., whereas the police version, in the form of testimonies of the Investigating Officer (PW11) and ASI Jagjit Singh (PW12), is to the effect that the accused was arrested on 05.08.2006 in the area of the village adda (bus stop).

Rightly, PW10, i.e. the brother of the deceased, should have been associated by the police at the time of recovery of the head from the cremation ground, alongwith the doctor and the Tehsildar, exercising the powers of Executive Magistrate. Why this elementary thing was not done is definitely a stigma on the investigating agency, which otherwise went to the length of preparing a videographed recording of the recovery, in the presence of other witnesses mentioned above.

33. However, despite any oddities/contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the factum of the recovery of the head of the deceased from the place where it was buried in the cremation ground, in the presence of a Tehsildar (Duty Magistrate) and a Doctor (PWs 13 and 4 respectively), as also of the weapons used in the murder of the deceased and the decapitation of his head, i.e. the dang and the dattar, at the hands of the accused, is the foremost evidence against the accused, which needs no further collaboration, in our opinion. If any at all is needed in relation to the above, the testimony of PW2, Balwinder Singh, to the effect that he saw the accused and the deceased quarreling and the accused actually causing injuries to the deceased, leave no manner of doubt in our mind as to the guilt of the accused. His admission of his guilt with regard to the same in view of a money dispute, further seals that case, though, even de hors the same, there is no room for doubt in this case, in our opinion.

34. At the cost of repetition, even dehors the testimony of PW2, the testimony of PWs 13 and 4, i.e. the Duty Magistrate and the Doctor, to the effect that the deceased led the police party and these two witnesses and others to the spot where the head was recovered from the cremation ground, leaves no manner of doubt whatsoever, for us to reach the conclusion that we have.

35. It is also necessary to say here, that the accused did not produce any kind of alibi at all in his defence, as to his presence anywhere else at the time of the occurrence, nor did he state anything in his defence at all, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., other than that he was innocent.

36. In view of what we have held above, the appellants conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, is upheld. The sentence imposed by the trial court, of imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of which he would undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, for the commission of an offence u/s 302 IPC, is also confirmed. The sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/-, as imposed by the trial court, for an offence u/s 201 IPC, is also confirmed in the manner that the trial court has imposed these sentences.

37. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

38. Lower Courts record be returned to the concerned branch forthwith.