GULAB C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 1984 (Indrajeet v. State of M. P.) as it arises out of the slime judgment and involves common questions of fact and law. ( 2 ) THE two appellants along with their wives were put on trial for offence punishable under Section 301/34, I. P. C. for having murdered Mate Rai alias Mata Ram on 26-8-1983 at village Pendri, Police Station, Manendragarh, District Sarguja but have been convicted under Section 326/34, I. P. C. and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment each together with a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00each and on failure of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for one year by judgment dated 6th April, 1984 passed by Shri V. K. Saxena, I Addi. Sessions Judge, Sarguja in Sessions Trial No. 187/83. They feel aggrieved by their aforesaid conviction and sentence and have preferred their separate appeals from jail while undergoing the sentence. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION allegation against the appellant was that deceased Mata Ram was working in his field at about 12 noon when the appellants armed with deadly weapons reached the spot and rushed to kill Mate Rai. Mate Rai ran away from the spot to save his life but was chased by the two appellants and assaulted. Appellant Bhola assaulted Mate Rai with lathi whereas Indrajeet dealt with Tangia blows. Barsia (P. W. 2), Angad (P. W. 5), Prem (P. W. 3) and Sudarshan (P. W. 4) are alleged to have witnessed the incident. As a result of the aforesaid assault Mate Rai was almost dead and was brought home by the witnesses. He was carried to Police Station, Manendragarh where report Ex. P-I was lodged at 16. 05 hours on 27-8-1986. The medical examination by Dr. A. K. Mishra (P. W. 13) revealed 3 incised wounds, one bruise, one defused swelling and tenderness and pain accompanied with swelling on the person of deceased Mate Rai. X-ray examination of the deceased revealed fracture of left tibia and ulna bones. Mate Rai died after sometime. Dr. Mishra (P. W. 13) performed the post-mortem examination and found all the aforesaid injuries. According to Dr. Mishra the death was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting perforation of intestine. After investigation the two appellants along with their wives were put on trial as aforesaid. Mate Rai died after sometime. Dr. Mishra (P. W. 13) performed the post-mortem examination and found all the aforesaid injuries. According to Dr. Mishra the death was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting perforation of intestine. After investigation the two appellants along with their wives were put on trial as aforesaid. ( 4 ) THE learned Judge relying on the evidence of record held that Mate Rai died as a result of injuries found on his person. Relying on the evidence of Barsia (P. W. 2), Prem (P. W. 3), Sudarshan (P. W. 4) and Angad (P. W. 5) the learned Judge held that the two appellants were responsible for the injuries found on the person of the deceased. Learned Judge, however, found no intention to kill and therefore found no case under Section 302, I. P. C. that is how the two appellants have been held guilty under Section 326/34, I. P. C. Their wives have been found to be falsely implicated and acquitted. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that evidence that appellant Indrajeet was armed with Tangia and has caused injuries with the same is unreliable, as the witnesses on this point have omitted to make any such statement before the Police. It is also submitted that explanation of the omission given by R. D. Chaurasia (P. W. 19) is highly improbable and not sufficient to accept the evidence. It is further submitted that the first information report had been lodged after undue delay and for which there is no explanation. Under the circumstances it is submitted that the offence must be held as not proved. As regards sentence, it is submitted that the two appellants are persons of young age and first offenders and therefore deserve a lenient sentence. ( 5 ) ROZNAMCHA Sanha dated 278-1983 (Ex. P-i) would indicate that the incident had taken place on 26. 8. 1983. According to this report Bhola and Indrajeet were both armed with Tangia and (accused injuries to the deceased with them. F. I. R. (Ex. P-3) was recorded on 27-8-1983 at 1605 hours on the basis of the aforesaid Sanha report. Sanha and the report would indicate that these were lodged by the deceased himself who had come to the Police Station along with his brother Buda. In between the Sanha and the FIR the deceased had been examined by Dr. F. I. R. (Ex. P-3) was recorded on 27-8-1983 at 1605 hours on the basis of the aforesaid Sanha report. Sanha and the report would indicate that these were lodged by the deceased himself who had come to the Police Station along with his brother Buda. In between the Sanha and the FIR the deceased had been examined by Dr. Mishra (P. W. 13) who found 3 incised wounds on the person of deceased and opined that these incised wounds were caused by sharp edged weapon. Other injuries found on the person of the deceased, according to the doctor, could be caused by hard and blunt object like a lathi under the circumstances, it is clear that Mate Rai had suffered injuries not only by a sharp edged weapon like Tangia but also by hard and blunt object like lathi. The report in so far as it alleges the use of Tangia by the two appellants is therefore not corroborated by medical evidence and must be held to be exaggerated. ( 6 ) ORAL evidence furnished by the eyewitnesses, however, fully supports the medical opinion recorded on 27. 8. 1983. Birsia (P. W. 2) is the sister of the deceased and had reached the spot on hearing shouts of Mate Rai. She saw appellant Bhola hitting Mate Rai with lathi and appellant Indrajeet with Tangia. This witness further states that she had seen the wives of the two appellants hitting Mate Rai with their fists. Since the two wives have been acquitted this court is not concerned with this part of the incident. In cross-examination she was confronted with the case diary statement (Ex. D-1) where the incident had not been recorded in the manner deposed by her in the Court. Her explanation was that she had told the Police that appellant Indrajeet hit Mate Rai with Tangia and appellant Bhola by lathi. She could not explain why the aforesaid did not find place in the case diary statement. Her case diary statement was recorded by R. D. Chourasia (P. W. 19 ). According to Chourasia (P. W. 19) he did not record that appellant Indrajeet used Tangia and appellant Bhola used lathi only because she did not tell him. (Para 14 ). She could not explain why the aforesaid did not find place in the case diary statement. Her case diary statement was recorded by R. D. Chourasia (P. W. 19 ). According to Chourasia (P. W. 19) he did not record that appellant Indrajeet used Tangia and appellant Bhola used lathi only because she did not tell him. (Para 14 ). Inspite of the aforesaid discrepancy Birsa (P. W. 2) remained firm and insisted that the two appellants caused injuries as stated by her in the Court them (P. W. 3) fully supports the prosecution case. He is not related to the deceased. According to him he was going for a both in the Nala along with Sudarshan when he heard the shouts of Mate Rai and went to the place of incident. According to him, he saw Bhola hitting with lathi and Indrajeet with Tangia. He was one of the persons who had taken Mate Rai to the Police Station next day. In his cross- examination this witness stated that he could not take Mate Rai to the Police Station on the date of incident because sufficient persons were not available to carry him. He was also confronted with his case diary statement (Ex D-2) which did not contain the fact that Indrajeet hit with Tangia and Bhola hit with lathi. He was not able to say why it was omitted. According to him, he had stated the entire incident to the Police. Except for this omission in his case diary statement there is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit his version. A perusal of the case diary statement (Ex. D-2) would only indicate that his Court statement is the correct statement. He had stated to the Police that Indrajeet was armed with Tangia and Bhola was armed with lathi and both of them had caused injuries. The statement of this witness read in this context his case diary statement (Ex. D-2) would indicate that both are identical except for the difference of style of writing. Since this witness is an independent witness there is no reason why his evidence should not be accepted. Sudarshan (P. W. 4) is another independent witness who had accompanied Prem (P. W. 3) to the spot. He also stated that Indrajeet caused injuries with Tangia while Bhola caused injuries with lathi. He was also confronted with his case diary statement (Ex. Sudarshan (P. W. 4) is another independent witness who had accompanied Prem (P. W. 3) to the spot. He also stated that Indrajeet caused injuries with Tangia while Bhola caused injuries with lathi. He was also confronted with his case diary statement (Ex. D3) where his statement has no been recorded as stated in the Court. He has asserted that he told the incident to thePolice as he is stating in the Court. A perusal of Ex D-3 would indicate that there is no omission in the case diary statement, as alleged. This witness had stated to the Police that Indrajeet was armed with Tangia and Bhola with lathi. It is also stated that both of them caused injuries. Under the circumstances, even the evidence of this witness does not suffer from any defect whatsoever. Angad (P. W. 5) is another witness who had reached the spot and had seen the two appellant coming from that side. According to him. Indrajeet was armed with Tangia while Bhola was armed with lathi. He is not the actual witness to the incident but had seen the two appellants immediately after the incident. His evidence therefore provides corroboration to the evidence of Prem and Sudarshan. It has already been noticed that evidence of Prem and Sudarshan is supported by the medical evidence on record. The medical opinion sufficiently justifies the conclusion that these two witnesses are stating the truth In the context of this independent evidence the discrepancy in the evidence of Birsia (P. W. 2) is of no consequence. Under the circumstances, the conclusion that the two appellants caused injuries to the deceased Mate Rai is correct conclusion needing no interference of this Court. ( 7 ) THAT the two appellants had the common intention to assault is clear from the fact that the two together reached the agricultural field of the deceased and chased him before actually assaulting. There can be no direct evidence of common intention which must be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of the case. Appellants being armed with lathi and Tangia going to the field of the deceased and following him then he ran away are the circumstances which justify the conclusion of their acting in pursuance to their common intention. Under the circumstances, their conviction with the aid of section 34, Indian Penal Code is also well merited and needs no interference of this Court. Under the circumstances, their conviction with the aid of section 34, Indian Penal Code is also well merited and needs no interference of this Court. ( 8 ) UNDER the circumstances, the question of delay in lodging the first information report may be examined. The incident had admittedly taken place at noon time on 26-8-1983 and the matter was reported to the Police at 2 p. m. on 27-8-1983. The place of incident is at a distance of 20 kilometers from the Police Station. According to Sudarshan (P. W. 4) the deceased- Mate Rai was taken to, his home on the same day after about an hour of the incident. He has further deposed that it takes about 4 hours to reach Manendragarh from his village. The bus from his village to Manendragarh leaves at about 12 noon and is the only bus. (Para 11 ). This evidence indicates that there was no bus available to the witness to take the deceased to Manendragarh on the date of incident and that appears to be the reason why he was brought to the Police Station the next day. In view of the distance and non-availability of any transport the delay in lodging the report will not be fatal. Inspite of it, it is clear that the evidence of related witnesses suffered from exaggerations only because sufficient time was available to re-consider the matter and re-arrange the evidence. In this view of the matter, if the prosecution case is rested on the evidence of related witnesses only it would have suffered a fatal blow. Since the prosecution case is proved by the independent witnesses no such benefit can be given to the appellants. ( 9 ) IN view of the discussion aforesaid the conviction of the two appellants for offence as alleged is fully justified and needs no interference of this Court. ( 10 ) AS far as sentence is concerned, a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment can not be said to be either harsh or excessive. It is no doubt true that the appellants are young rustic villagers and yet that cannot be a ground for giving them any lesser punishment, as the punishment imposed on them is already lenient. In spite of it, there is no justification for imposing the fine and sentence in default of payment thereof. It is no doubt true that the appellants are young rustic villagers and yet that cannot be a ground for giving them any lesser punishment, as the punishment imposed on them is already lenient. In spite of it, there is no justification for imposing the fine and sentence in default of payment thereof. The payment of fine from such poor villagers cannot be accepted and therefore such an imposition would only mean the extension of jail sentence already imposed. Under the circumstances, fine imposed on them is set-aside. ( 11 ) AS a result of discussion aforesaid, the appeal substantially fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellants have rightly been found guilty of offence punishable under section 326/34, I. P. C. and sentenced to 5 years R. I. The sentence of fine is, however, set aside. Order accordingly. .