JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants, Hanuman and Ramesh alias Puran, have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for three months each. 2. The prosecution against the appellants was launched on the basis of a first information report registered by the Kotwali Police Baran at the instance of Dhannalal (PW.l) on May 7, 1978 at 4.30 p.m. Dhannalal lodged a written report alleging that, on the even date, at about 7.30 a.m., the appellants had killed his brother, Narain near a water-course in the outskirts of village Tasaya. He mentioned in that context that Narain had gone out that morning to answer a call of nature and that the appellants took him by surprise when they mounted an assault on him while he was still defecating near the water course. Some other villagers including Bheru Lal Mat (PW 3), Bheru Mali Chamar (PW 4). Ram Pratap Gujjar (PW 6) and the complainant himself, who had also gone out to the water course like Narain deceased, for morning ablutions, heard the cries of "maar dia, Maar dia" raised by Narain and witnessed him falling on the ground as a result of the lathi blows inflicted on him by the accused-appellants and the letter running away from the scene of occurrence. On being informed about the tragedy, Gopal son of Narain deceased reached there with his bullock-cart and carried the dead body from there to Kotwali, Baran and thereafter to the Civil Hospital, Baran for autopsy. Dr. Gautam (PW 5) noted five external injuries in and around the head region of the dead body. He discovered multiple fractures on the left temporal and parietal bones as well as on both the occipital bones. Broken pieces of the bones had pierced the brain tissues. Dr. Gautam opined that Narain had died of laceration of brain and sub-arachnoid hemorrhage due to external injuries 4 and 5. 3. He discovered multiple fractures on the left temporal and parietal bones as well as on both the occipital bones. Broken pieces of the bones had pierced the brain tissues. Dr. Gautam opined that Narain had died of laceration of brain and sub-arachnoid hemorrhage due to external injuries 4 and 5. 3. The motive of the crime, as given in the F. I. R., is that a few years prior to the occurrence, Ram Gopal, the father of Hanuman accused appellant, had shot dead the brother of the deceased, namely, Hira and that after Ram Gopal's release from jail and return to the village, Narain deceased had challenged him threatening that he had better not show his face to him. Hanuman took umbrage at this challenge to his father. That is why, it is alleged, he along with his maternal uncle's son, Ramesh alias Puran, killed Narain on May 7, 1978. 4. Relying on the ocular evidence of PWs Dhannalal, Bherulal Mali, Bherulal Chamar and Ram Pratap Gujjar, as corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Gautam. the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that both the accused-appellants struck lathi blows to Narain deceased near the water course in the outskirts of village Tasaya on May 7, 1978, at about 7.30 a.m. and killed him on the spot. Consequently, the trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused under section 302 I.P.C. The accused filed two sets of appeals, one through their counsel and another directly through the jail authorities, from the said order of conviction and sentence. Both the appeals are being disposed of together. 5. We have heard both sides and perused the evidence on record. We are satisfied that PWs Dhannalal, Bherulal Mali, Bherulal Chamar and Ram Pratap Gujjar, who belong to a cross-section of the population of village Tassaya and who have given eye-witness account of the occurrence, are by and large reliable witnesses. Of course, Dhannalal, being the brother of the deceased, is an interested witness. The other three witnesses, namely, Bherulal Mali, Bherulal Chamar and Ram Partap Gujjar cannot be accused of any partiality for the prosecution and bias against the accused. Of course, Dhannalal, being the brother of the deceased, is an interested witness. The other three witnesses, namely, Bherulal Mali, Bherulal Chamar and Ram Partap Gujjar cannot be accused of any partiality for the prosecution and bias against the accused. The only circumstance which is bound to alert the Court to scrutinise their evidence with more than usual is that they were kept by the police almost incommunicado in the police station for a couple of days before their statements were caused to be recorded by a magistrate under section 164 Cr. P.C. It is however significant to note that they made no attempt to conceal this fact from the Court. They frankly admitted that they had been taken from the village to the police station the same evening after the occurrence and that they were allowed to go only after their statements had been recorded by the magistrate on May 9, 1978. They asserted in this context that they had told the truth to the magistrate and that they were telling the truth in the trial. There is no good reason to disbelieve them. It is obvious that the investigating officer was not telling the truth when he stated that he did not bring the witnesses to the police station on May 7, evening and that he did not keep them under surveillance till May 9 when their statements were recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. By making a candid admission that they were kept in the police station for a day or two before being taken to the magistrate for their statements under section 164 Cr. P.C , these three witnesses stand out, in contrast to the investigating officer, not only as truthful witnesses but also as characters strong enough to resist pressure which might have been, in all probability, brought to bear on them to deny the fact to their being taken to the police station on May 7 and being kept there till May 9, 1978. The presence of these witnesses and of Dhannalal around the scene of crime at the time of the occurrence can hardly be questioned. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of our countrymen living in the rural areas have to go out to the open fields for morning ablutions for want of lavatory facilities in their homes. The presence of these witnesses and of Dhannalal around the scene of crime at the time of the occurrence can hardly be questioned. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of our countrymen living in the rural areas have to go out to the open fields for morning ablutions for want of lavatory facilities in their homes. A pond or a running water course in the outskirts of the village obviously comes handy for such like ablutions. PW Ram Pratap was telling the truth when he stated that almost all the villagers flock to places in the vicinity of that water course for their morning ablutions. 6. All the four eye-witnesses deposed with one voice that their attention was drawn towards the scene of the crime when they heard the cries of "maar dia maar dia" raised by Narain deceased, Dhannalal, Bherulal Mali and Ram Pratap Gujjar saw the accused giving lathi blows to the deceased. It appears that Bherulal Chamar directed his attention towards the scene of crime a little later in as much as he quite frankly stated that all he could see was both the accused running away wish sicks in their hands from the place where Narain deceased had fallen. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out what he described to be serious discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. For example, he read out the statement of PW Dhannalal and submitted that according to this witness none of the alleged eyewitnesses of this occurrence left the scene of the crime to go to the village and inform the members of the family of the deceased about his death. A careful perusal of the statement of PW Dhannalal will, however, reveal that he did not say in so many words that none of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence went to the village till the arrival there of Gopal son of Narain deceased with a bullock-cart. All that Dhannalal stated was that none of them went to the village to lodge information about the occurrence. He was clearly having in mind the lodging of information with the village officials like Sarpanch etc. PWs Bherulal Mali, Bherulal Chamar and Ram Pratap Gujjar have categorically stated that after witnessing the occurrence they went to the village and apprised the son of the deceased about this tragedy. He was clearly having in mind the lodging of information with the village officials like Sarpanch etc. PWs Bherulal Mali, Bherulal Chamar and Ram Pratap Gujjar have categorically stated that after witnessing the occurrence they went to the village and apprised the son of the deceased about this tragedy. It appears that they went to him one after the other and not together. PW Ram Pratap added that he accompanied Gopal in his bullock-cart from the village to the scene of the crime. We are satisfied on reading the evidence of all the four witnesses that their evidence does not suffer from any such discrepancy as alleged. 8. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellants, then argued that the FIR in this case was lodged after a delay of three or four hours and that, therefore, the entire case of the prosecution becomes suspect on that score. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that there was any delay in lodging the FIR. It will be recalled that the occurrence took place at 7.30 a.m. in the morning. The police station is at a distance of 7 miles from the village. It must have taken quite some time for the witnesses to inform the son of the deceased in the village and for the latter to get over the track and arrange for a bullock-cart. Dhannalal explained that they arrived in the police station by about 2 O'Clock in the after-noon. Of course, the FIR was not registered by SHO. Balwan Singh till 4.30 p.m. He seems to have insisted on the report being submitted in writing. That explains the delay between 2 p.m. and 4 30 p.m. We have seen a number of cases in which the Station House Officers immediately insist on a report being submitted in writing instead of entertaining on oral report. This is a practice, which cannot be condemned in too strong tenus. The mere fact that S.I. Balwan Singh conducted himself in this irresponsible manner and thus delayed the recording of the FIR. till 4.30 p.m. is no ground for throwing the case of the prosecution over load. We have already pointed out above, that S.I. Balwan Singh had taken the prosecution witnesses to the police station and kept them there with a view to getting their statements recorded under section 164 Cr. till 4.30 p.m. is no ground for throwing the case of the prosecution over load. We have already pointed out above, that S.I. Balwan Singh had taken the prosecution witnesses to the police station and kept them there with a view to getting their statements recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. He compounded his guilt in that behalf by trying to conceal this fact from the Court. This again, however, is no ground for rejecting the evidence of PWs Bherulal Mali, Ram Pratap Gujjar and Bherulal Chamar as unreliable. 9. The evidence produced in defence is not of much consequence. Bhanwarlal DW 1 stated that Bherulal Gujjar, one of the brothers of the deceased, had got a complaint written from him alleging therein that some one had killed his brother. It is not the case of the prosecution that Bherulal Gujjar had seen the occurrence. Assuming for a moment that he told Bhanwarlal DW 1 that someone had killed his brother, this would not detract from the strength of the ocular evidence of Dhannalal, Bherulal Mali, Bherulal Chamar and Ram Pratap Gujjar to the effect that they had seen the occurrence and that the appellants had killed Narain in their presence. 10. DW Ramesh admitted that the water-course where the occurrence took place is a favourite haunt of the villagers for morning ablutions. DW Ghasi Khan preferred to be non-committal about it in as much as he stated that he would not know if the villagers go to the water course for morning ablutions. It is obvious that Ghasi Khan knew it too well that the villagers go to the water course for morning ablutions. He was trying to conceal this fact from the Court for obvious reasons. 11. DWs Ghasi Khan and Ramesh are materially discrepant. Ghasi Khan stated that Bheru Mali came to the scene of the crime. On the other hand Ramesh would have us believe that he did not see Bheru Mali at all there. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we affirm the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellants, The appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******