JUDGMENT 1. - The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated August 27, 1981, by convicting and sentencing the appellant Harbhajan Singh as under: S. No. Offence under section Sentence awarded (1) 302, Indian Penal Code imprisonment for life (2) 25(1)(c), Arms Act Rigorious imprisonment for four months; (3) 27, Arms Act Four months' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased Jagjit Singh aged about 20 years, was the son of PW 1 Atma Singh and PW 2 Smt. Mahindra Kaur. He was living with them in Chak-2, P.S. Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar. The appellant Harbhajan Singh, aged about 22/23 years, is also a resident of the same Chak. Heera Ram Nayak, who is father of the coaccused Peeruram (acquitted by the Court below) was share-cropper of the appellant. The appellant developed illicit connections with the wife of the share-cropper Peeruram. The deceased Jagjitsingh had seen the appellant and the wife of Peeruram in compromising position in his field. This displeased the appellant. It is suggested that this annoyance prompted the appellant to take away the life of Jagjit Singh. On November 19, 1980 the deceased Jagjit Singh, his mother Smt. Mo indra Kaur (PW 2) and his uncle Srawansingh PW 3 were working in their Murabba. The deceased and his mother Smt. Mohindrakaur PW 2 plucked the cotton bolls. Jagjitsingh thereafter put the green grass and prepared a bundle of it. He then took the bundle on his head and started to go to his house. When he was in Kila No. 9 of his Chak, the appellant and Peeruram appeared there. The appellant was holding a pistol in his hand. He gave a Lalkara to Jagjitsingh that he would not leave him alive Saying so, he fired a shot at Jagjitsingh which hit him in his chest. Jagjitsingh staggered three or four stops and fell down in the Khala (water channel). Smt. Mohindra Kaur PW 2 raised the cries and asked the accused as to why they killed Jagjitsingh. The appellant and Peeruram thereafter ran away towards their Dhani. Srawan Singh PW 3, who was working in the same Murabba, came running. Finding Jagjitsingh lying dead, Srawansingh PW 3 went to Karanpur where the victim's father Atmasingh had gone to the Patwari. The appellant and Peeruram thereafter ran away towards their Dhani. Srawan Singh PW 3, who was working in the same Murabba, came running. Finding Jagjitsingh lying dead, Srawansingh PW 3 went to Karanpur where the victim's father Atmasingh had gone to the Patwari. Smt. Mohindra Kaur PW 2 went to the village. Srawansingh reached the house of the Patwari, where he found PWI Atmasingh. He narrated the incident to Atmasingh. Both of them went together to police station, Karanpur, where Atmasingh PW 1 verbally lodged report Ex. P 1 of the occurrence at about 1.00. p.m. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr. Babulal PW 11 arrived on the scene of the occurrence at about 7.00 am on November 20, 1980. He inspected the site and prepared the inquest of the victim's dead body. He seized the blood-stained soil lying scattered around the dead body and also from Kila No. 2 where Jagjitsingh was fired at. The post-mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted at about 1.00 p.m. by PW 7 Dr. M.P. Agrawal the then Medical Officer Incharge Primary Health Centre, Karanpur. The doctor noticed the following ante-mortem injuries over the victim's dead body: External (1) Wound of entry, lacerated, inverted edges, oval shaped with clotted blood 1/2" x 1/2" x thoraxic cavity deep, directed posteriorly, medially and down wards, situated in the left 2nd space and over upper margin of left 3rd rib in the mid-clavicular line with fracture of left 3rd rib; (2) Wound of exit, lacerated, everted edges, oval shaped, with clotted blood and dark fluid blood oozing out of it, 3/4" x 1/2" x thoraxic cavity deep, just medial to the medial border of left scapula at the level of D5, D6 vertebra, 2/1-2 on left of the mid line. Internal Left third rib anteriorly under injury No. 1 and left 5th and 6th ribs posteriorly under injury No. 2 was found fractured; left pleura was lacerated under injury No. 1 with a big hole anteriorly and posteriorly both aspects. Left pleural cavity was full of massive dark fluid blood. In the left lung there was a big hole 1" x 1" present anteriorly and 1/1/2" x 11/2" posteriorly with through and through wound and laceration of the lung. Left pleural cavity was full of massive dark fluid blood. In the left lung there was a big hole 1" x 1" present anteriorly and 1/1/2" x 11/2" posteriorly with through and through wound and laceration of the lung. The doctor was of the opinion that the case of death of the victim was gun shot injury. The injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post mortem report prepared by him is Ex. P 8. The blood stained clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed. The appellant was arrested on November 24, 1980 and in consequence of the information furnished by him on November 27, 1980, pistol (Ex. 8), empty cartridge case (Ex. 9) and two live cartridges (Ex. 10 & Ex. 11) were recovered. On scientific examination, the pistol was found serviceable. Human blood was detected on the cloths of the deceased victim. The co-accused Peeru Ram was also arrested. On the completion of investigation, the police presented a challan against Peeru Ram and the appellant Harbhajan Singh in the Court of Munsif cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case came for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. He framed a charge under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code against Peeruram and under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant, to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. Both the accused denied their complicity in the commission of the crime and submitted that they were falsely implicated as their relations with the complainant party were not happy. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the Additional Sessions Judge found no incriminating material against accused Peeruram to connect him with the murder of Jagjitsingh. He was therefore, acquitted. The prosecution case was taken substantially true and the charges were held duly proved against the appellant Harbhajan Singh. He was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very outset. Aggrieved against his conviction, Harbhajan Singh has taken this appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. D.K. Purohit learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the complainant's counsel Mr. M.L. Garg. He was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very outset. Aggrieved against his conviction, Harbhajan Singh has taken this appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. D.K. Purohit learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the complainant's counsel Mr. M.L. Garg. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 4. It may be stated before proceeding further that Mr. Purohit has not challenged the cause of death of Jagjitsingh as opined by Dr. M.P. Agrawal (PW 7). The doctor stated that Jagjitsingh had died on account of the gunshot injuries. Injury No. 1, being the entry wound and injury No. 2 being the exit wound. We have gone through the testimony of Dr. Agrawal and find no reasons to distrust his opinion. The death of Jagjitsingh was, thus, not natural. It was homicidal, caused by gun-shot. 5. PW 2 Smt. Mohindra Kaur and PW 3 Srawansingh are the ocular witnesses of the incident. It was on the strength of their testimony that the appellant was convicted for the murder of Jagjitsingh. The trial court treated them as witnesses of truth and found their testimony reliable. Since their testimony has been seriously challenged before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it will be proper to briefly read what they testified. 6. While reading their evidence, site plan Ex. P 2 should also be looked into. 7. PW 2 Smt. Mohindra Kaur is the mother of the deceased-victim. She stated that she and her son Jagjitsingh plucked the cotton bolls in their Murabba on the day of the incident while PW 3 Srawansingh collected the harvested Gawar crop in his Kila situated in the same Murabba. In the afternoon, Jagjitsingh cut green grass and made a bundle of it. She went to take a round of the cotton crop. Jagjitsingh placed the boundle of the green grass on his head and started to go to his house. She was following him. While Jagjitsingh was going with the head-load in Kila No. 9, she noticed the appellant and Peeruram standing on the bank of the water channel. The appellant was having a pistol. He gave a lalkara to Jagjitsingh that he would not leave him alive. Saying so, he fired the pistol at Jagjitsingh which hit him on his chest. Jagjitsingh staggered upto 3/4 steps and fell down in the channel. The appellant was having a pistol. He gave a lalkara to Jagjitsingh that he would not leave him alive. Saying so, he fired the pistol at Jagjitsingh which hit him on his chest. Jagjitsingh staggered upto 3/4 steps and fell down in the channel. Sarwansingh also came running there. She and Sarwansingh challenged the appellant and Peeruram The appellant and Peeruram ran away towards their Dhanies. She and Srawansingh went to Jagjitsingh and found him dead. There was profuse bleeding from his wounds and the clothes he was wearing were drenched with it. She and Srawansingh went to their village and from there, Srawansingh went to her husband to apprise him of the incident. PW 3 Srawansingh also narrated the incident in more or less the same words. He stated that Smt. Mohindra Kaur and her son Jagjitsingh plucked the cotton bolls on the day of the incident while he collected the harvested crop of Gawar. In the evening, Jagjitsingh cut the green grass and prepared a bundle. Jagjitsingh then took the bundle on his head and started he go to his house. When Jagjit Singh was in Kila No. 9, the appellant and Peeruram appeared at the bank of the water channel. The appellant gave a Lalkara to Jagjitsingh that he would not leave him alive and thereafter fired the pistol on him, which hit Jagjitsingh on his chest. Jagjitsingh staggered and fell down with the grass-bundle in the water channel. The appellant and Peeraram thereafter ran away towards their Dhanies. He went to the village and narrated the incident to Phumansingh, Pyarasingh (PW 9) and Lalsingh. Since Atma Singh (father of the deceased-victim) had gone to Karanpur to see the Patwari, he went to the house of the Patwari Nayabsingh. He found Atmasingh at the house of the Patwari Nayabsingh, where he reached at about 11.00 p.m. From the house of the Patwari, he and Atmasingh went to the police station, Karanpur, where Atmasingh lodged the FIR Ex. P 1. This witness is the real uncle of the deceased-victim. 8. The contention of Mr. Purohit is that both these eye witnesses have been falsely introduced by the prosecution. None of them was present on the spot and none had seen the incident. It was argued their conduct is highly unnatural and belies that their claim to have seen the incident. This witness is the real uncle of the deceased-victim. 8. The contention of Mr. Purohit is that both these eye witnesses have been falsely introduced by the prosecution. None of them was present on the spot and none had seen the incident. It was argued their conduct is highly unnatural and belies that their claim to have seen the incident. It was argued that they saw Jagjitsingh being killed and yet they left his dead body and went to the village. Atleast, the mother would not act in thf manner PW 2 Smt. Mohindra Kaur has acted. No mother would leave the dead body of her son in the lonely place. The fact that she went to her house, leaving the dead body of her son in a lonely place, shows that she was not really a witness of the incident. Likewise, Srawansingh (PW 3) went to the Patwari's house situate nearly three kilometres away from Karanpur. While going to the house of Patwari, he could have first gone very nearly to the Police Station to lodge the report. But instead of going to the police station, he went to the Patwari's house. That shows that he had not seen the incident and warned to consult Atma Singh before lodging the report to the police. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions and find no substance in them. 9. There is ample evidence on record to corroborate both these eye witnesses. PW 9 Pyarasingh is a resident of Chak-2-X, He deposed that after sun-set, Srawansingh (PW 3) came to him and narrated the incident to him that Jagjitsingh was shot dead by the appellant Harbhajan Singh in his Murabba. Srawansingh told him that be was going to inform his brother Atmasingh. He also requested the witness to go to the place where the dead body of Jagjitsingh was lying and to keep a watch there. The witness further stated that he took Phumansingh and Lalsingh with him and went to the place where the dead body of Jagjitsingh was lying. In cross-examination, he categorically stated that at about 7.30 p.m. they reached the place where the victim's dead body was lying. He very categorically stated that Srawansingh told him that Jagjitsingh was shot dead by the appellant Harbhajan Singh. This witness has no bias or axe to grind against the appellant. In cross-examination, he categorically stated that at about 7.30 p.m. they reached the place where the victim's dead body was lying. He very categorically stated that Srawansingh told him that Jagjitsingh was shot dead by the appellant Harbhajan Singh. This witness has no bias or axe to grind against the appellant. The witness further stated that he, Phumansingh and Lalsingh remained with the dead body through-out the night and at about 2.00-02.30 a.m. (in the mid night), the police arrived there. This witness has been corroborated by the A.S.I. Police Kalayansingh (PW 4) who reached the place of the occurrence in the fame night after the case was registered at the police station. PW 8 Nayabsingh is the Patwari. He deposed that Atmasingh came to him at his house situate nearly three kilometres away from Karanpur, and stayed with him. At about 11.00 p.m. or so, Atmasingh's brother Srawansingh, accompanied with two persons, came there on a tractor. Srawansingh had a talk with Atmasingh, which he could not hear, but he could gather that it was in respect of some murder. Thereafter Atmasingh, Srawansingh and the other persons went away on the tractor. The Patwari is again an independent witness having no soft corner for Atmasingh or any ill-feeling against the appellant. When the evidence of the two eye witnesses is read along with the statements of PW 4 Kalyansingh, PW 8 Nayabsingh and PW 9 Pyara Singh, there remains no doubt that PW 2 Smt. Mohindra Kaur and PW 3 Srawansingh are the witnesses of truth and they had seen the incident, in which Jagjitsingh was shot dead by the appellant. While evaluating the evidence of the two eye witnesses, one more fact has to be kept in view. PW 2 Smt. Mohindra Kaur has stated that her husband Atmasingh (father of the deceased-victim) and the appellant are cousin brothers as the mother of one is the sister of the other. ( eqyfte gjHktu vkSj esjk HkkbZ ekek&QwQh ds yM+ds gSaA ) If these two witnesses had not seen the incident, they would be the last persons to implicate the appellant on a charge of murder. No love was lost between the appellant and the eye witnesses before the incident and it is difficult to conceive that they would plant a false case against the appellant. 10. No love was lost between the appellant and the eye witnesses before the incident and it is difficult to conceive that they would plant a false case against the appellant. 10. When the site was inspected by the Investigating Officer, blood was found at point 'G' in Kila No. 9 and also in the Khala (water channel). This again affords a very valuable corroboration to the testimony of the two eye witnesses, according to whom Jagjitsingh was fired at in Kila No. 9 and after staggering a few steps, he fell down in the water channel. Both these witnesses stated that Jagjitsingh had a head-load of green grass. The bundle of green grass was also found in the water channel. 11. We find nothing unnatural in the conduct of PW 2 Smt. Mohindra Kaur and PW 3 Srawansingh. Every person, may he be a close relative of the victim, would normally act in the manner these two eye witnesses have behaved. Sarwansingh went to the village, narrated the incident there and sent Pyarasingh to the place of this occurrence to keep a watch on the victim's dead body. He thereafter went to the victim's father to apprise him of the incident. He also went to the police station with Atmasingh to lodge the report. The FIR Ex. P 1 bears his signatures. His conduct is what should have been in the normal circumstances. PW 2 Smt. Mohindra Kaur went to the village. There is again nothing unnatural on her part. She could not be expected to remain alone with the dead body. We therefore, find no substance in the contention of Mr. Purohit that the two eye witnesses had not really seen the incident and that they have been falsely introduced as ocular witnesses of the incident. 12. It was next argued that the FIR Ex. P 1 is ante-timed ante-dated and post-investigation document. It was contended that FIR Ex. P 1 was received in the Court of the Magistrate on November 22, 1980. Whereas it was registered at about 1.00 a.m. on November 20, 1980. There is a Court of Magistrate at Karanpur where it was received. The late receipt of the FIR Ex. P 1 in the Court throws considerable doubt on its genuineness. It was argued that nobody had seen the incident. Time was, thus, taken in Manphool Singh and fabricating a false case against the appellant. There is a Court of Magistrate at Karanpur where it was received. The late receipt of the FIR Ex. P 1 in the Court throws considerable doubt on its genuineness. It was argued that nobody had seen the incident. Time was, thus, taken in Manphool Singh and fabricating a false case against the appellant. We again find no merit in the contention. The primary question before us is whether Ex. P 1 was lodged at about 1.00 a.m. on November 20, 1980 as shown in it. PW 1 Atmasingh stated that he lodged it at about 1 00 a.m. on November 20, 1980. PW 4 Kaliyansingh deposed that Atma Singh appeared at the police station at about 1.00 am. on November 20, 1980 and verbally lodged report Ex. P 1, which was taken down by him. It bears his signatures. He further stated that he immediately informed the Circle Officer Police. The Circle Officer Police directed him to immediately proceed to the site of the occurrence and keep a watch there. The witness further stated that on these directions he immediately left the police station and went to the scene of the occurrence. He remained there till the Circle Officer Police reached there at about 7.00 a.m. PW 1 Mr. B.L. Jain is the Circle Officer Police. He stated that at about 1.00 a.m. on November 20, 1980 he was informed by ASI, Police Kaliyansingh about the registration of the case under Section 157, Cr. PC no doubt, casts a duty on an officer Incharge of a police station to forthwith send a copy of the FIR to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance. However, some delay in despatching the report to the Magistrate is not of much significance when it is above suspicion. Merely because the FIR reached the Magistrate after some delay, it cannot be said that it is ante-timed ante-dated and post-investigation document. The circumstances, which we have pointed out above, show that the FIR Ex. P 1 was lodged at about 1.00 a.m. on November 20, 1980 as shown in it. When it was really lodged at 1.00 a.m. on November 20, 1980, its late receipt in the Court of the Magistrate cannot be taken to be a circumstance which can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety. 13. P 1 was lodged at about 1.00 a.m. on November 20, 1980 as shown in it. When it was really lodged at 1.00 a.m. on November 20, 1980, its late receipt in the Court of the Magistrate cannot be taken to be a circumstance which can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety. 13. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gokaram and Ors., AIR 1985 Supreme Court 131 ) their Lordships had an occasion to deal with Section 157, Cr. PC where the FIR was received late by the Magistrate. It was abserved: "It is not that as if every delay in sending a delayed special report to the District Magistrate under Section 157, Cr. PC would necessarily lead to the inference that the FIR has not been lodged at the time stated or has been ante-timed or ante-dated or that the investigation is not fair and forthright." 14. We have therefore, no hesitation that the FIR Ex. P 1 is a genuine document. 15. It was next contended by Mr. Purohit that pistol (Article 8) and two empty cartridge cases (Articles 9) and two live cartridges (Articles 10 and 11) were recovered in consequence of the information furnished by the appellant whilst under police custody. They were sent for scientific examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, from where report Ex. P 14 was received. It was argued that as per the contents of the report Ex. P 14, the empty cartridge (mentioned as C-2 in Ex. P 14) Article 9 has not been found to have been mis-fired from pistol (Article 8). As such it cannot be said that Jagjitsingh was hit by the shot from pistol (Article 8). There is no merit in the contention. Pistol (Article 8) has been found servicable though the time of its last fire could not be ascertained It is true that empty cartridge case (Article 9) was not mis-fired from pistol (Article 8) but it has no relevancy. No empty cartridge was found on the site the occurrence. If any cartridge was found on the site, its scientific examination: whether it was fired from pistol (Article 8) or not, would have the relevancy. We do not have a ease of the mis-fire. As such, report Ex. P 14 renders no help to the appellant. 16. No other contention was raised. 17. If any cartridge was found on the site, its scientific examination: whether it was fired from pistol (Article 8) or not, would have the relevancy. We do not have a ease of the mis-fire. As such, report Ex. P 14 renders no help to the appellant. 16. No other contention was raised. 17. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in this appeal. The appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced. No interference is called for. The appeal is consequently dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******