JUDGMENT 1. 1. This jail appeal by accused-appellant Gopi son of Nand Ram, is directed against the judmgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated 19.2.1973, whereby he held the accused-appellant guilty of committing the murder of Mahadev (since deceased) and convicted him under section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are : There was a long standing dispute between the accused-appellant and P.W. 12 Sadhu relating to field 'Rewdawala'. On the fateful day i.e. on 12. 6.1971 accused Gopi ploughed a portion of the field 'Rewdawala'. Sadhu protested and asked him to desist from ploughing the field but the accused refused to oblige him. Sadhu sought the intervention of the neighbours P. W. 4 Jodha, P. W. 13 Surja and P. W. 18 Jagdish, sitting in the adjacent field, all of them invited Gopi to negotiate for settlement of dispute between the parties but Gopi did not leave the field and went on ploughing it. At that stage Mahadev (since deceased) was called on the adjoining field and he was asked to persuade the accused to desist from cultivating the field 'Rewdawala.' Mahadev invited Gopi for settlement talk but he paid no heed to it and went on ploughing. Mahadev went towards the field where Gopi was cultivating. As soon as Mahadev entered the field Gopi left the plough and after being armed with an axe, came towards Mahadev and inflicted six incised injuries. Mahadev was seriously injured and he fell down in the field, who was taken by the villagers to Ringus Hospital for treatment but unfortunately he breathed his last in the way. The dead body of Mahadev was brought back on the field. In the,mean time first information report Ex. P. 1 was lodged by Mewa Ram P. W. 1 at the police station Sri Madhopur at 12.15 p. m. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is seven miles. After registering the case P. W. 17 Rambabu S. H. O. Sri Madhopur started for the scene of occurrence on the same day in a jeep in the company of Mewa Ram, Surja and Sadhu. After registering the case P. W. 17 Rambabu S. H. O. Sri Madhopur started for the scene of occurrence on the same day in a jeep in the company of Mewa Ram, Surja and Sadhu. In the way he learnt that the accused Gopi after inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased, jumped into a well known as 'Ramsagar.' The S. H. O. went towards the well and the witnesses Surja and others left for the field. The accused was brought out of the well in presence of P.W. 7 Jhutha Ram and P.W. 10 Ratan and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P/6. Accused expressed his desire to get the weapon of offence discovered and stated that he had thrown it into the well. The information memo is Ex. P/10. In consequence of this information axe Art. 5 was brought out from the well by PW.14 Gopal son of Ramnath, the seizure memo is Ex. P/11. A 'Danda Ex. A/2, a pair of Chappals Ex, A/1 and some other clothes left by Gopi on the scene of occurrence were also seized by the Investigating Officer. Autopsy on the dead body of Mahadev was performed by PW. 6 Dr. Kailash. Post mortem report is Ex. P/13, Dr. Kailash noticed the following injuries on the dead-body of Mahadev:- 1. Incised wound of 4" x 3' on the back of scalp with reference to parietal bone. 2. Incised wound 2" x 2" on the front of scalp ; 3. Incised wound 2" x 2" on the middle of scalp ; 4. Incised wound 2" x 2" on the left side of neck cutting the big vessels: 5. Incised wound 2" x 1" one inch below injury No. 4. 6. Incised wound 2" x 1" on the left mandible; 7. Bruise 2" x 2' on the internal aspect on the right thigh at its lower 13rd. 3. In the opinion of the doctor injuries No. 1, 4 and 5 were individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The police after usual investigation submitted challan against the accused in the Court of Munsif and First Class Magistrate. The accused-appellant after commitment was tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses in support of its case out of whom P.W. 1 Mema, PW. 2 Bhagwana, PW. The police after usual investigation submitted challan against the accused in the Court of Munsif and First Class Magistrate. The accused-appellant after commitment was tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses in support of its case out of whom P.W. 1 Mema, PW. 2 Bhagwana, PW. 4 Jodoa, PW. 5 Pokhar, PW. 12 Sadhu, PW. 13 Surja and PW. 18 Jagdish are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Besides their being the eye-witnesses PW. 1 Mema is the author of the first information report Ex. P 1. PW. 12 Sadhu and PW. 13 Surja are also the signatories to the first information report. PW. 16 Mohd. Umar is the main Investigating Officer of the case, P. W. 6 Dr. Kailash Chandra is the person who performed autopsy on the dead body of Mahadev. PW. 7 Jhutha Ram and PW. 10 Ratan were examined to prove discovery of axe Art. 5 as well as the fact that the accused was brought out of the well known as 'Ramsagar'. PW. 3 Mangal was examined to prove that just after the occurrence accused threw the axe into the well and jumped into it. The accused-appellant in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. denied his complicity in the crime and stated that a fads case was framed against him. He further stated that when he was ploughing the field, witnesses PW. 13 Surja, PW. 1 Mema and PW. 5 Pokhar after being armed with Axe., Barchi and Lathi came towards him and asked him to desist from ploughing the field. At that stage Mahadev (since deceased) intervened. Being enraged of intervention all the three inflicted injuries on the person of Mahadev. Seeing this accused left the field but was perused and out of fear for his life he jumped into the well known as 'Ramsagar'. The appellant examined two witnesses DW. 1 Mangal Ram and DW. 2 Rameshwar in support of his plea. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after appraisal of the evidence held that on the date of the occurrence the accused was ploughing the field prior to the occurrence, and it Could not be conclusively said that Nand Singh (father of the accused) had no possession on the disputed land. 2 Rameshwar in support of his plea. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after appraisal of the evidence held that on the date of the occurrence the accused was ploughing the field prior to the occurrence, and it Could not be conclusively said that Nand Singh (father of the accused) had no possession on the disputed land. He accepted ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses, and held that accused-appellant inflicted all the injuries sustained by Mahadev on the date and time alleged by the prosecution. He disbelieved the plea raised by the accused and found the statements of the defence witnesses unreliable. On the basis of the above finding the trial Judge found the accused-appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant has vehemently urged that there are certain out standing features of the case which according to him are sufficient to through doubt on the prosecution story. The statements-of the witnesses are full of contradictions and improbabilities and it would not be safe to maintain the conviction of the accused-appellant. He further stated that the investigation was fair and the prosecution is guilty of suppressing the statements of 4he witnesses recorded by S. K. O, Rambabu and only copies of the statements recorded by PW. 16 Mohammad Umar were supplied to the accused and thus he has been deprived of valuable right of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses and has been prejudiced in his entire defence. The learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Khan has supported the judgment of the trial court. 5. It cannot be disputed and has not rightly been disputed that who-so-ever caused injuries to Mahadev, intended to cause his death and the injuries sustained by him were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. PW. 5 Dr. Kailash Chandra, who performed the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Mahadev (since deceased) stated that injuries Nos. 1, 4 and 5 were individually fatal to life and individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and in his opinion cause of death was shock due to excessive haemorrhage and due to the cutting of big vessels of the neck of the deceased on the left side and due to internal haemorrhage. 6. 1, 4 and 5 were individually fatal to life and individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and in his opinion cause of death was shock due to excessive haemorrhage and due to the cutting of big vessels of the neck of the deceased on the left side and due to internal haemorrhage. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that a serious irregularity was committed by the trial court in not providing the copies of the statements of the witnesses, recorded by PW. 17 Rambabu, to the accused. The accused was deprived of his valuable right to cross-examine with the aid of those statements and the entire trial was vitiated. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the effect of not supplying the copies of the earlier statement of the witnesses was that he has been prejudiced in his defence and the statements of those witnesses cannot be read in support of the prosecution. The testimony of all the witnesses should be rejected in toto. The learned Public Prosecutor has urged that PW.17 Rambabu recorded the statement of only three witnesses namely, Sadhu PW. 12, Chhaju Lal PW. 9 & Raghunath out of whom Raghunath was not examined by the prosecution. P. W, 9 Chhaju Lal Patwari was examined to prove the possession of the complaint on the scene of occurrence. The first information report Ex. P. 1 bears the signatures of Sadhu and could have been very well cross-examined with reference to the First-information report. He further urged that no prejudice was caused to the accused-appellant. It was the duty of the accused-appellant to demand the copy of the statement of the witnesses and, as he failed to make a request for supplying the copies of the statements of these witnesses, he cannot make a grievance in the appeal ate court.The provisions of 162, Cr.P.C. (old) provide valuable safe-guard to the accused and denial thereof may be justified only in exceptional circumstances. The provisions to the record of the statements of the witnesses and the supply of copies to the accused so that they may be utilised at the trial for effectively defending himself cannot normally be permitted to the whittled down. The provisions to the record of the statements of the witnesses and the supply of copies to the accused so that they may be utilised at the trial for effectively defending himself cannot normally be permitted to the whittled down. The object of section 162, 173 (4) and 207-A Cr.P.C. (old) is to enable the accused to obtain a clear picture of the case against him before the commencement of the inquiry. The object of the provisions manifestly to give the accused the fullest information of the materials on which the case of the State is based. The failure to furnish a copy of statements recorded during the investigation does not effect the jurisdiction of the court to try the case nor is the failure by itself a ground which effects the power of the court to record a conviction if the evidence warrants such a course. No doubt the provision relating to giving the copies of the statements recorded in the course of investigation is undoubtedly of great importance, but the breach thereof must be considered in the light of the prejudice caused to the accused by reason of its breach. Each case must be decided on its own facts and the extent of the prejudice to the accused in each case must determine whether the trial should be held altogether afresh or whether the defect could be remedied. Section 537, Cr P. C. (old) provides amongst other things that subject to the provisions contained in the code no finding, sentence or order passed by court of competent jurisdiction shall be reserved or altered on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrants, proclamation order, judgement or other proceedings, unless such error, omission or irregularity or misdirection has in fact occasioned the failure of justice, and in the case in hand the statements of witnesses recorded by P. W. 16 Mohd. Umar were supplied to the accused. Relying upon those statement the accused cross-examined the witnesses at length. The provisions of section 173 (4), 162 and 207-A as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Noor Khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1964 S. C. 286. The prejudice caused to any accused is required to be proved and in the,absence of any proof of prejudice, a trial cannot be held to be vitiated. The provisions of section 173 (4), 162 and 207-A as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Noor Khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1964 S. C. 286. The prejudice caused to any accused is required to be proved and in the,absence of any proof of prejudice, a trial cannot be held to be vitiated. We have carefully read the statements of P. W. 13 Sadhu. He was cross-examined with reference to his earlier statement Ex. D. 14. He was also cross-examined with reference to his police statement Ex. D. 2 recorded by Mohd. Umar. Except the general statement of prejudice, the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show as to how his client has been misled in his defence by non-supply of the statement of Sadhu recorded by P. W. 17 Rambabu. As already stated above, out of the three witnesses whose statements were recorded by Rambabu, one was not examined and the other is not an eye-witness. He was Patwari and has given statement on the basis of revenue record and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellant by non supply of the police statement recorded by S. H. O. The testimony of the third witness Sadhu for the reasons already mentioned above cannot be rejected in toto. The requirement of law is that the statement of such a witness is required to be dealt with With great caution because the accused might have been deprived of right of putting the testimony of such a witness to the test of touch-stone cross-examination with reference to his earlier statement. 7. For arguments sake, we propose to examine this case from a different angle also. We will examine whether even after discarding the evidence of Sadhu the remaining evidence is sufficient to uphold the conviction or not, P. W. 1 Mema stated that on the day of occurrence at about 8 or 9 a. m. he was sowing chillies in his field Which is just adjacent to the field of 'Rewadwala'. Accused Gopi was ploughing the field 'Rewadwala' which was in the cultivating possession of Sadhu. Sadhu asked Gopi not to plough the field but he paid no heed to it. The other witnesses examined in the case were also called and they assembled in the field of Ramnath. Accused Gopi was ploughing the field 'Rewadwala' which was in the cultivating possession of Sadhu. Sadhu asked Gopi not to plough the field but he paid no heed to it. The other witnesses examined in the case were also called and they assembled in the field of Ramnath. They invited Gopi to come there and settle the dispute but as Gopi turned a deaf ear to them and continued ploughing, Sadhu and others suggested that Mahadev (since deceased) who was an educated man, may be called, so that he may persuade the accused not to create the trouble. Thereupon, Sadhu went and called Mahadev. Accused Gopi was invited by Mahadev to come and talk for a settlement and was asked not to plough the field but as Gopi did not pay any heed, saying that he will go and bring Gopi. Mahadev went towards the direction where Gopi was ploughing. In the meantime Gopi dropped the ploughing came near the 'Dol' of Sadhu with an axe in his hand, some talks transpired between Mahadev and Gopi and Gopi inflicted axe blows on the person of Mahadev one after the other. Thereafter Gopi ran away towards the north by crossing his field with the axe. The villagers rushed to the place where Mahadev was lying injured. They put burnt clothes on his wounds and took him away in the camel-cart towards the Ringus Hospital but in the way near the petrol pump Mahadev breathed his last. On the suggestion of the villagers the dead-body was brought back at the place of occurrence. Thereafter he alongwith Sadhu and Surja went to the police station Sri Madhopur and lodged the first information report Ex. P. 1. This witness was cross-examined at considerable length by the defence. He Is the author of the first-information report Ex. P. 1. Inspite of searching cross-examination, nothing has appeared in bis statement on the basis of which it can be said that bis testimony is not reliable. He has refuted all the suggestions made to him under cross-examination. 8. Then we have the statement of P. W. 13 Surja. He is a signatory to the first-information report Ex. P. 1. More or less this witness has also made a similar statement as made by P. W. 1 Mema Ram. He was cross-examined in detail with reference to his police statement Ex. D. 14. 8. Then we have the statement of P. W. 13 Surja. He is a signatory to the first-information report Ex. P. 1. More or less this witness has also made a similar statement as made by P. W. 1 Mema Ram. He was cross-examined in detail with reference to his police statement Ex. D. 14. Except minor contradiction, there is nothing oh the basis of which his presence on the scene of occurrence at the time of assault can be doubted. In most cases the witnesses when asked about details venture to give some answers for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which they have witnessed and even if contradictions appearing in the statements regarding points which are not material, their evidence has to be the salient features of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be discarded. If after considering, the whole mass of evidence, a residue remains acceptable by which truth is established, the statement cannot be thrown out purely on hypothetical conjectural. The suggestion made to the witness that Surja, Mema and Raghunath murdered Mahadev. does not stand to reason. It is pertinent to note that the accused did not sustain even a scratch and there is no reason if there persons would have been the assailants, the accused would not have been injured. The statements of above two witnesses stand corroborated by the statement of P.W. 2 Bhagwana, The trial court for good and sufficient reasons has believed their evidence. The learned Judge had the opportunity to watch the demeanour of the witnesses in the witness-box, and we find no reason to hold otherwise. The statements of these witnesses find corroboration from the medical evidence. The first-information report of the occurrence was lodged at 12-15 p. m. i. e. within four hours and fifteen minutes. The distance between the field of occurrence and the police station is seven miles. Some time must have been spent by the relatives of the deceased in giving first aid to him and thereafter taking him to the hospital. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the first information report can be said to be a delayed one. It contains all the necessary details. The names of the accused as Well as the names of the witnesses have been mentioned therein, and a detailed account of the occurrence has been given. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the first information report can be said to be a delayed one. It contains all the necessary details. The names of the accused as Well as the names of the witnesses have been mentioned therein, and a detailed account of the occurrence has been given. It is difficult to believe that soon-after the occurrence Mema Ram could have so quickly cooked up a false story involving the appellant. The details of the first-information report constitute a intrinsic evidence detracting from the plea of the first-information report being a made-up story. 9. Besides that, there is evidence regarding the conduct of the accused. Soon after the occurrence after inflicting the injuries the accused ran towards the well and jumped into it. P. W. 3 Mangla stated that on the date and time of the occurrence to was standing in the field. He saw the accused-appellant rushing towards the well 'Ramsagar'. He first throw the axe into the well and thereafter jumped into it. Running of the accused with axe in his hand just after the occurrence and jumping into the well is strong piece of corroborative evidence to bring home the guilt to the accused. Besides that, the accused expressed his desire to get the weapon of offence recovered and in consequence of the information given by him, the axe Ex. 5 was brought out of the well. No doubt, it could not be proved that the axe was stained with human blood but as, he has thrown the axe into the water, non-availability of stains if blood on the axe Art. 5 cannot be of any help to the accused, P. W. 6 Dr. Kailash chand stated that injuries No. 1 to 6 sustained by the deceased could be caused by axe Art. 5. The recovery of weapon of offence though not found stained with human blood was held to be a relevant piece of evidence by the Supreme Court in Mulk Raj v. The State of U. P., AIR 1959 SC 902 . The relevant portion reads as under:- "According to the prosecution while the appellant was seen running away, he threw the dagger Exhibit 1, into the 'nali' This fact was stated by Kishan Lal in the First Information Report lodged soon after the occurrence. The evidence of Janendra Das P. W. 6 is to that effect. The relevant portion reads as under:- "According to the prosecution while the appellant was seen running away, he threw the dagger Exhibit 1, into the 'nali' This fact was stated by Kishan Lal in the First Information Report lodged soon after the occurrence. The evidence of Janendra Das P. W. 6 is to that effect. No doubt Jaaendra Das along with Kishan Lal P. W. 1 and Dewan Chand P. W. 2 has been disbelieved regarding their having witnessed the killing and robbing of the deceased. The High Court judgement is silent on the point whether it believed this witness as to the rest of his story. He was fully believed by the Additional Sessions Judge and we can see no reason why his evidence should not be accepted like that of the other witnesses about events after the assault on the deceased. He deposed like the other witnesses about the share of the appellant in the crime. His evidence that he saw appellant throw the dagger Exhibit 1 in the 'nali' is emply corroborated by the recovery of that weapon from the same 'nali' after the apprehension of the appellant. The evidence also provided that on recovery the dagger was found to be stained with blood. This dagger Exhibit 1 was found by the Chemical Examiner to be stained with blood. It is true that owing to the blood having disintegrated its origin could not be determined. The evidence therefore established that the appellant threw into the 'nali' a blood stained dagger while he was running away from near the scene of the murder. The deceased had only one injury on the abdomen which caused his death. The doctor's evidence is that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that the dagger Exhibit 1 could have caused the fatal injury. Evidently no other weapon except the dagger had been used against the deceased because in that event one would expect the deceased to have had more than the one injury found on his person. This would suggest that the dagger Exhibit 1 which was found to be stained with blood immediately after the assault, was used with deadly effect." The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant awarded by the trial court are upheld. The appeal is hereby dismissed. *******