RAJESHWAR SINGH, J. Thakur Prasad convicted under Section 302,i. P. C. for committing murder of Sarafat Ali on 16-3-75 at 8. 00 p. m. near his shop and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Sessions Court filed this appeal. 2. Prosecution allegation is that the appellant and deceased opened a Parchun shop in partnership and it was looked after by the appellant. The deceased used to sit at another shop of his at his house and the appellant used to conduct the affairs of the partnership shop. The appellant did not render account and a few months before the occurrence that partnership shop was closed. The deceased demanded that the appellant should render account but he went on postponing it. On 16-3-75 in the noon, the deceased again insisted on rendition of accounts, when enraged the appellant, who went away threaten ing that he would settle the account. 3. It was in the aforesaid background that at 8. 00 p. m. the deceased closed his shop that was at his house and he came out. Immediately the appellant who was concealing himself in the Verandah attacked the deceased with a razor on his neck. The deceased raised an alarm which attracted a number of persons including some of the prosecution witnesses and the appel lant made good his escape leaving the razor at the spot. The appellant could not be caught. Amongst the persons attracted to the spot was one Badri Prasad (P. W. 2 ). The deceased got a report written by Badri Prasad (P. W. 2) on his dictation. Other persons including the brother of the deceased namely, Gulam Waris (P. W. 6) had also come at the spot. They took the deceased in a Tempo to the Police Station at a distance of 6 miles. There the deceased handed over the written report at 9. 50 p. m. on the same day. On the basis of this written report Head Constable, Asman Singh (P. W. 14) prepared a chick and made an entry in the General Diary. The deceased was referred for medical examination. 4. . Medical examination was conducted by Dr. K. K. Agarwal (P. W. 11) at 10. 30 p. m. and he found following injuries on the body of the deceased as mentioned in (Ext. Ka-11) :- (1) Incised wound measuring 12cm. X 1 cm. The deceased was referred for medical examination. 4. . Medical examination was conducted by Dr. K. K. Agarwal (P. W. 11) at 10. 30 p. m. and he found following injuries on the body of the deceased as mentioned in (Ext. Ka-11) :- (1) Incised wound measuring 12cm. X 1 cm. X trachea deep on the front side of the neck just below the thyroid cartilage. The trachea had been cut and the air was coming out. (2) Incised wound measuring 3cm. x cm. X skin deep on the right index finger. 5. Thereafter it was advised that the deceased should be taken to Lucknow. It appears that while on his way to Lucknow Sarafat Ali died. On being informed the police at Lucknow made an inquest over the dead body. Then it was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. P. P. Gupta (P. W. 10) on 17-3-75 at 2. 00 p. m. He found that the age of the deceased was about 25 years and he died 18 hours earlier. Rigor mortis was present. Following ante-mortem injuries were noticed by him. They are to be found in Ex. Ka-10. The first 4 injuries were caused by some sharp edged weapon :- (1) Incised wound 7 cm. x 3 cm. X trachea deep on the front side of the neck, 4 cm. above the inner and of the right clavicle. Its tailing was towards right side and trachea had been cut blow the thyroid cartilage. (2) Incised wound measuring 3. 2 cm. x 0. 5. cm. x muscle deep on the right index finger. This wound was on the inner side of the first phalanx. (3) Incised wound measuring 1. 5 cm. X 10 cm. (0. 3 cm.) X muscle deep on the palmar side of the middle finger of the right hand. (4) Incised wound measuring 1. 5 cm. x 3/10 cm. muscle deep on the palmar side of the third phalanx of the ring finger right hand. (5) Abrasion measuring 7 cm. x 2. 5 cm. on the back side of right forearm, below the elbow. (6) Abrasion measuring 1. 5 cm. x 1 cm. on the back side right forearm, 2. 5 cm. below the elbow. (7) Abrasion measuring 2cm. xl cm. upon the front side of the left wrist. (8) Abrasion measuring 5 cm. xo. 5 cm. on the right leg. 11 cms. on the back side of right forearm, below the elbow. (6) Abrasion measuring 1. 5 cm. x 1 cm. on the back side right forearm, 2. 5 cm. below the elbow. (7) Abrasion measuring 2cm. xl cm. upon the front side of the left wrist. (8) Abrasion measuring 5 cm. xo. 5 cm. on the right leg. 11 cms. below the knee. 6. When the First Information Report was lodged S. I. , Bhanu Pratap Dubey (P. W. 12) was present at the police station and investigation was assigned to him. At the police station he took statement of deceased Sarafat Ali and some other witnesses. Then he went to the spot. There he carried the usual investigation including the examination of witnesses, preparation of site-plan and taking blood from the spot. Some sources of light such as petromax etc. were also seen. On 17-3-75 the accused was arrested and on his pointing out his blood-stained clothes (shirt and pant) were recovered from his house and the same were lying concealed in a heap of sand. Site-plan of this spot was also prepared. The accused was sent for medical examination. It was conducted by Dr. V. N. Agarwal (P. W. 13 ). His report is Ext. Ka-16 and according to it following injuries were found on his person : (1) Incised wound measuring 2. 5 cm. x cm. x cm. on the right index finger, (2) Incised wound 1. 5 cm. X cm. x cm. on the back side of left wrist. (3) Abrasion measuring 10 cm. x cm. in the meddle of the right leg. 7. On chemical examination blood was found on the razor that was found on the spot, on the pieces of plaster that were taken from the spot and on the clothes of the accused that were recovered at his instance. Finally investigation was closed on 12-5-75 and charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-15) was submitted. 8. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His contention was that the case against him is fictitious and the witnesses were deposing against him on account of pressure of the police. 9. To prove their case the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and appel lant did not produce any evidence. 10. Amongst the prosecution witnesses Badri Prasad (P. W. 2), Yunus (P. W. 4 ). His contention was that the case against him is fictitious and the witnesses were deposing against him on account of pressure of the police. 9. To prove their case the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and appel lant did not produce any evidence. 10. Amongst the prosecution witnesses Badri Prasad (P. W. 2), Yunus (P. W. 4 ). Rahim Bux (P. W. 5) and Gulam Waris (P. W. 6) are eye-witnesses of occurrence. Besides this, Badri Prasad (P. W. 2) also wrote the report at the dictation of the deceased and Gulam Waris (P. W. 6) brother of the deceased gave evidence regarding motive as well. 11. Mohammad Yahiya (P. W. 7) is witness of recovery of clothes at the instance of the appellant. Dr. K. K. Agarwal (P. W. 11) conduced the medical examination of the deceased when he was alive and Dr. P. P. Gupta (P. W. 1) conducted post-mortem examination. Dr. V. N. Agarwal (P. W. 13) examined the injuries of the accused. 12. Asman Singh (P. W. 14) is scribe of the chick F. I. R. and S. I. , Bhanu Pratap Dubey (P. W. 12) is the investigating officer of the case. 13. S. I. , Maiku Lal Upadhyaya (P. W. 3) made inquest over the dead body. Jubair Mustafa (P. W. 1) is witnesses of inquest report. Sattar (P. W. 8) is witness of recovery of blood from the spot. Constable Ram Singh (P. W. 15) took the dead body for post-mortem examination. 14. Besides this, there is one other witness Mohkam (P. W. 9) who is landlord of the shop which was opened in partnership between the appellant and the deceased. He says that this shop did business for 10-11 months and during this time the appellant was looking after that business and finally the appellant was the person who took away the goods of that shop. 15. Thus, the case mainly rests on the reliability of the eye-witnesses. As said earlier eye-witnesses are Badri Prasad (P. W. 2), Yunus (P. W. 4), Rahim Bux (P. W. 5) and Gulam Waris (P. W. 6 ). They have given actual eye-witness account of attack by the appellant on the deceased details of which have been given earlier. Badri Prasad (P. W. 2) came from the nearby place at a distance of 50-60 steps where he was hearing the recital of Ramayan along with other people. They have given actual eye-witness account of attack by the appellant on the deceased details of which have been given earlier. Badri Prasad (P. W. 2) came from the nearby place at a distance of 50-60 steps where he was hearing the recital of Ramayan along with other people. He wrote down the F. I. R. which was promptly lodged and this ensures that he was present at the spot. Yunus (P. W. 4) is mentioned in the F. I. R. and so is mentioned Rahim Bux (P. W. 5 ). All these three witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr. P. C. on the same night. The remaining witness Gulam Waris (P. W. 6) has his shop just adjoining the shop where the incident occurred. So his presence at the spot is quite probable. Yunus (P. W. 4) after closing his shop was going to his house. He says that his shop is at a distance of about 50-60 yards. After all that was the time for closing shop and if this witness after closing his shop was going to his house there is nothing strange. When the incident has taken place on the main road, naturally the people passing on the road would witness it. It was natural for this witnesses to pass by that side when he had a shop in the area. Rahim Bux (P. W. 5) was going to recite Namaz. According to him he recites Namaz 5 times a day and he was going to recite the last Namaz on the day. Badri Prasad (P. W. 2), Yunus (P. W. 4) and Rahim Bux (P. W. 5) have neither any special interest in the deceased nor they have any enmity with the appellant. So they appear to be perfectly independent witnesses. Of course, Gulam Waris (P. W. 6) is brother of the deceased but his evidence does not stand alone and when only one person is being implicated he will be the last person to implicate a wrong person and leave out the real culprit. This has value when his shop is nearby and he had opportunity to be present at the spot. So it is felt that these witnesses were present at the spot. They saw the occurrence and they have no reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Some minor discrepancies in the statements between 161, Cr. This has value when his shop is nearby and he had opportunity to be present at the spot. So it is felt that these witnesses were present at the spot. They saw the occurrence and they have no reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Some minor discrepancies in the statements between 161, Cr. P. C. and state ment in the Court have been pointed out. They are such as whether the deceas ed fell down or sat down after receiving the injuries. They are absolutely of no consequence. Thus, these witnesses appear to be perfectly reliable and they support the F. I. R. which can be the dying- declaration of the deceased. 16. The evidence of the above witnesses get support from the fact that within one and a half hour FIR is lodged at a distance of 6 miles. This is prompt F. I. R. by all standards. The Investigating Officer found blood at the alleged place of occurrence. This supports eye-witnesses account regarding the place of occurrence and the time of occurrence is also to be believed keeping in view the prompt FIR. There is nothing in the medical evidence which may indicate that the injuries of the deceased were not suffered at the time alleged by the prosecution. 17. Then we have evidence of Mohammad Yahiya (P. W. 7) and the Investigating Officer which shows that at the instance of accused his clothes stained with blood were recovered within 24 hours. Blood was found on these clothes during chemical examination. There is also evidence that some minor injuries which could be received by a razor in a scuffle were found on the person of the accused. 18. Thus the evidence is overwhelming showing that the witnesses are reliable and their statements in implicating the accused are truthful. 19. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that after the injury suffered by the deceased on his neck he could not speak and he could not remain alive. Besides the eye-witness account we have statement of the Dr. who examined the deceased at 10. 30p. m. and found him alive. There is no reason as to why Doctor will give a false statement on this point. So it has to be believed that Sarafat Ali did not die immediately after the occurrence. Besides the eye-witness account we have statement of the Dr. who examined the deceased at 10. 30p. m. and found him alive. There is no reason as to why Doctor will give a false statement on this point. So it has to be believed that Sarafat Ali did not die immediately after the occurrence. As regards the point, whether the deceased could speak and dictate the F. I. R. we have to look to the statement of the Doctors, who actually saw the injuries, who gave statement before the Court and who were also cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellant, and any abstract theory will not be of much avail. Firstly, there is the statement of Dr. K. K. Agarwal (P. W. 11) who examined the injuries. He says that he had not made any note that the deceased was conscious or unconscious and this shows that the deceased must have been conscious at the time of medical examination, Dr. P. P. Gupta (P. W. 10) who conducted post-mortem examination has been asked questions on this point. He says that it was not probable that the man should have died immediately on receipt of the injuries. According to him if the injury on the neck was pressed by hand or it was covered in any other manner, the air passing out of it could stop and the deceased could speak. It is in the evidence of Badri Prasad (P. W. 2) and Yunus (P. W. 4) that the deceased put his hand on the injury and latter it was seen that the wound had been covered by his shirt. It was natural for the deceased or his brother and other well-wishers to try to cover the wound and press it to stop the flow of blood. Under the circumstances deceased would speak, according to medical evidence and there seems to be no doubt about it. 20. It was commented by the learned counsel for the appellant that the thumb-impression of the deceased was taken on the FIR ; because he was dead. When the deceased had received injury naturally he must be finding difficult to sign and there is nothing abnormal if his thumb-impression was taken in spite of being alive. 20. It was commented by the learned counsel for the appellant that the thumb-impression of the deceased was taken on the FIR ; because he was dead. When the deceased had received injury naturally he must be finding difficult to sign and there is nothing abnormal if his thumb-impression was taken in spite of being alive. He was made to sit in the tempo between the two seats and that was for giving support by one seat of tempo but this will not mean that the man had died at the time as argued by the appellant. The question of light has also been commented upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is in the evidence that it was a moonlight night one kerosene lamp was burning there and it is light FIR was written. Gulam Waris (P. W. 6) whose shop is nearby, was working at his shop and it is said that there was petromax. It is very natural to have light near the shop and on the main road and a known person could very easily be recognized. Hence it cannot be said that due to darkness assailant could not be recognized. The failure to mention light in the FIR or mention in statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. that there was electricity do not have much importance. There is hardly a case without embellishment and evidence is given after a lapse of so much time, that these facts pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be attached any importance. 21. One argument of the appellant was that the injury on the neck was such that it would not caused by one man. This is a sheer conjecture not based on any evidence. The deceased was attacked unawares, so there is nothing difficult one man could cause the injury and some descrepancies in the size of the injuries between the statements of the Doctors, who conducted post-mortem examination and who examined the injured, will not be material. 22. Then it was argued that there are descrepancies as to who was sitting where in the tempo, how the kerosene lamp can be burning in the shop when it had been closed. 22. Then it was argued that there are descrepancies as to who was sitting where in the tempo, how the kerosene lamp can be burning in the shop when it had been closed. One of the witnesses say that the First Information Report was folded but it does not bear folds and why should the kerosene lamp be burning when there was petromax at the flour mill of Gulam Waris. These are all minor things. There is hardly a case without some embellishment. Criminal case has to be decided on broad features and not on stay sentences in statement. Nobody can remember as to where a person was sitting in the tempo a year back. Shop had been closed but there was verandah outside the shop and it was part of the shop. According to one witness kerosene lamp was burning in this Verandah. So it could be said that Kerosene lamp was burning in the shop. If FIR was not folded it does not matter and so does not matter difference in ink in FIR if one is there. Kerosene lamp may have been required for writting the First information Report through petromax burning at some distance could be sufficient for recognizing a known person. 23. As regards motive we have evidence of deceaseds brother, Gulam Waris (P. W. 6 ). He said that there was a partnership shop and in respect of it some ill-will developed between the appellant and the deceased. We have also statement of Mohkarn (P. W. 9) to the effect that as his shop was taken on rent on which mostly the appellant used to conduct the business, and on by some times deceased used to sit there. This shop had been closed according to him. So motive is also proved. 24. Thus, we find motive and can rely upon the witness account given by the witness, most of whom appear to be independent and they are perfectly reliable. So prosecution has proved the case and there is no scope for inter ference with the judgment of the learned trial court. 25. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a legal point that in this case investigation was made by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who could not make it in view of Section 157 of the Cr. So prosecution has proved the case and there is no scope for inter ference with the judgment of the learned trial court. 25. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a legal point that in this case investigation was made by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who could not make it in view of Section 157 of the Cr. P. C. So the conviction and sentence should be set aside and the appeal should be allowed. Section 157 describes the procedure for investigation. It says that the officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall proceed in person or shall depute one of his subordinate officer not being below such rank as the State Government may by general or special order prescribe in this behalf. The Station Officer assign ed the investigation to his subordinate, the Investigating officer of this case and this is not disputed. No doubt, the Investigating Officer was an Assistant Sub-Inspector. But Section 157 of the Cr. P. C. does not say that an Assistant Sub-Inspector cannot be deputed. It rather, says that officer-in-charge of the Police Station can depute any of his subordinate officer, the only restriction being that he should not be below such rank as the State Government may by general or special order prescribe. It has not been shown to us that the State Government has prescribed that an Assistant Sub-Inspector or a person below the rank of S. I. cannot be deputed. So it does not stand proved that in this case any illegality has been committed and this point was not raised before the Court below to enable it to get the matter clarified. 26. Moreover, it appears that had this point been raised at the time of investigation before some competent Court, the Court would have taken notice of it and directed that the investigation should be made by a competent officer. But it was not done. Now it is being raised in the High Court, when the appellant has already been convicted and sentenced. Section 156 (2) of the Cr. P. C. says that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one, which such officer was not empowered to investigate. Section 156 (2) of the Cr. P. C. says that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one, which such officer was not empowered to investigate. So the question of incompetency of the Investigating officer cannot be raised at this stage and on account of it the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court cannot be set-aside. 27. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon under-noted rulings : - (1) The Public Prosecutor v. Mohammad Ali, AIR 1969 AP 41 . It was pointed out in this case that the fact that police had made investi gation was not of any importance and could not affect validity of proceedings even if the police had investigated without proper authority under Section 155 (2), Cr. P. C. (2) State v. Pukhia and others, AIR 1963 Raj 48. In this case it has been said that it is no ground for discharge of accused that investigation was made in contravention of Section 156 (1), Cr. P. C. (3) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, AIR 1964 SC 221 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court pointed out that where prosecution evidence has been held to be true and where the accused has had fully say in the matter, the conviction cannot obviously be set aside on the ground of some irregularity or illegality in the matter of investigation. (4) Surendra Pal Singh v. State of U. P. , 1980 Cr. LJ 1188. In this case illegality was brought to the notice of the High Court before the investigation was started. So a direction was given to reinvestigate the case. The case before us is different because here the illegality is being alleged for the first time after conviction of the appellant. (5) H. N. Rishbud and another v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 . The Supreme Court held that if cognizance in fact is taken on a police report vitiated by the breach of a mandatory provision relating to investiga tion, there can be no doubt that the result of the trial which follows it cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about a miscarriage of justice. In the case before us it has not been argued at all that any prejudice was caused to the appellant on account of investigation by A. S. I. 28. The result is the none of the aforesaid cases helps the appellant rather they point out to the contrary. 29. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed on the appellants are upheld. The appellants are on bail. Their bail is cancelled and they shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. 30. Compliance report be sent within six weeks. Appeal dismissed. .