Judgment N.P.Singh, J. 1. Appellant Munna @ Bisnudeo Mandal has been convicted under sections 302 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 Arms Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years u/s. 450 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year u/s. 27 Arms Act, by Sri S.N. Sinha, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Munger, in S.T. No. 5651 85. 2. The prosecution case, which has given rise to this appeal, is that, appellant Munna @ Bisnudeo Mandal often used to come and stay with his relation, Baudhi Mandal since acquitted, a neighbour of the informant. He had developed a fascination for Veena Devi, niece of the informant Natho Mandal (P.W.5) and daughter of P.W.1 Jai Singh Mandal. On the preceding day of the occurrence, he had come to the house of Baudhi Mandal. In the intervening night of 231 24-11-1984 when Veena, since deceased, was sleeping in her house alongwith her sister Kaili Devi (P.W.3), appellant went there and pulled her Saree, to have sex with her but she refused. Thereafter, both the sisters came to the house of the informant for rest. At about 11.30 in the night, while Veena was sleeping, alongwith her sister Kaili and aunt Rama (P.W.2) wife of the informant, the appellant entered the room and awoke her. When she protested appellant dragged her on the varandah and shot her dead from a pistol. Appellant was identified by Rama Devi and Kaili Devi in the light of Dibia which was burning in the room. On hearing, the sound of firing, informant who was sleeping in his cattle shed, outside rushed to his house and saw the appellant running away from there, with a pistol and Veena was lying dead on the varandah. Meanwhile, Jai Singh Mandal (P.W.1) father of the deceased also arrived there and saw the appellant, fleeing away alongwith Boudhi and Parmeshwar, since acquitted. Kaili and Rama Devi narrated about the occurrence- to Jai Singh Mandal and the informant. In the morning the informant went to the Police Station where his fardbeyan was recorded at about 1.45 P.M. On the basis of which First Information Report was drawn up. After charge sheet and commitment, the case came up for trial before the 1st Addl. Kaili and Rama Devi narrated about the occurrence- to Jai Singh Mandal and the informant. In the morning the informant went to the Police Station where his fardbeyan was recorded at about 1.45 P.M. On the basis of which First Information Report was drawn up. After charge sheet and commitment, the case came up for trial before the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Munger who framed the charges against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The defence was that the deceased was done to death by her family members on account of her bad character. 4. The prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses to prove its case. Cut of whom, P.W.1 Jai Singh Mandal is the father of deceased Veena. He came to the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of firing and saw the accused persons fleeing away in the flash of torch light. P.Ws.2 and 3, Rama Devi and Kaili Devi are the aunt and sister of the deceased. They arc eye witnesses to the occurrence. They were sleeping in a room alongwith the deceased, at the time of occurrence P.W.4 Gaya Devi is the daughter-in-law of the informant. She had seen the accused persons, fleeing away from the place of occurrence, in the flash of torch light. P.W. 5 Natho Mandal is the informant. P.W.6 Shankar Mandal has been tendered. P.W.7 Srikant Mandal is a witness on the inquest. P.W.8 Dharma Narain Prasad has proved protest petition (Ext.2) P.W.9 Dr. Promod Bihari Lal has held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has proved post-mortem report (Ext. 4). P.W. 10 and 11 Mangal Pandit and Jagrup Sah are the seizure list witnesses of blood stained earth. They had turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 12 Arun Kumar Keshri had investigated the case and submitted charge sheet. P.W. 13 Ram Govind Singh had recorded the fardbeyan and investigated the case in part. 5. On consideration of the material brought by the prosecution, the trial Court acquitted the two other accused persons of this case and convicted the appellant as mentioned aforesaid. 6. Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Advocate, appearing for the appellant has contended that the appellant has been wrongly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. 5. On consideration of the material brought by the prosecution, the trial Court acquitted the two other accused persons of this case and convicted the appellant as mentioned aforesaid. 6. Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Advocate, appearing for the appellant has contended that the appellant has been wrongly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. The alleged occurrence took place on 23-11-1984 at 11.30 in the night, whereas fardbeyan was lodged on 24-11-1984 at 13-45 hours. The inordinate delay in lodging the fardbeyan has not been explained. The prosecution case, therefore, must be viewed with great doubt. 7. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, learned State Counsel on the other hand, contended that the information was lodged at the Police Station at the earliest possible time. The P.O. village was situated in a diara of river Ganga, at a distance of 20 K.M. from the Police Station. It is common knowledge that boats are not played in the river in the night. Even in the day time, boats are not easily available in the village side to cross the river. It is evident from the evidence of the I.O. P. W. 13 in para 9 that it took him about six hours to reach the P.O. village from the Police Station. In view of the evidence of P.W.13 it is obvious that the informant could not have reached the police Station earlier when the fardbeyan was lodged. I do not find any substance in the submission of Sri Khan that there was any delay in lodging the information about the occurrence to the Police. 8. Sri Khan, further contended that the statement of Jai Singh Mandal (P.W.1) father of the deceased and aunt Rama Devi (P.W.2) were not recorded promptly by the I.O. Their statements were recorded about two months after the occurrence. The delay in recording the statements of the witnesses gives rise to the concoction and distortion in the statement P.W.1 and 2. Therefore, the testimony of eye witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be relied upon. 9. Learned State Counsel, in this regard contended that the case was supervised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He visited the place of occurrence but he did not suspect the complicity of the family members of the deceased in commission of the crime. Therefore, the testimony of eye witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be relied upon. 9. Learned State Counsel, in this regard contended that the case was supervised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He visited the place of occurrence but he did not suspect the complicity of the family members of the deceased in commission of the crime. P.W. 1 Jai Singh Mandai in para 11 of his evidence has stated that he met the I.O. in the village on the very next day of the occurrence. The I.O. took his statement as well as the statement of P.W.2. It appears from the protest petition Ext. 2 that P.W. 13 was not taking interest in the investigation. Therefore, there is plausible explanation for not recording the statement of P.Ws. 1 and 2 promptly by the police. However, it appears, that the statement of P.W. 3 Kaili, sister of the deceased who is an eye witness was recorded promptly by the police and she had fully supported the prosecution case. Therefore, there was no chance of any concoction and distortion in the statement of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Mere delay in recording the statement of witnesses cannot itself be a ground to discard the testimony of a witness when the statement of such a witness stands corroborated by other witnesses whose statement is recorded promptly by the police after the occurrence. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, therefore, cannot be discarded on the ground of delay in recording their statement by the police. 10. Sri Khan, further contended that no neighbour or any independent witness has come to support the prosecution case. The material witnesses examined in this case are the family members of the deceased. It appears that Jhagru Sah, Mangan Pandit, Shankar and Srikant who are co-villagers who came to the P.O. have been examined by the prosecution P.W.6 Shankar has been tendered P.W.7 Sri Kant is a witness of inquest P.W.10 Mangal and P.W. 11 Jhagru are the seizure list witnesses. Therefore, the contention of Sri Khan that no villager or neighbour has been examined by the prosecution is not correct. 11. Sri Khan, also contended that the P.W. 9 who held that autopsy on the dead body on 25-111984 at 4.45 P.M. opined that time elapsed since death and post mortem held was within 24 hours. Therefore, the contention of Sri Khan that no villager or neighbour has been examined by the prosecution is not correct. 11. Sri Khan, also contended that the P.W. 9 who held that autopsy on the dead body on 25-111984 at 4.45 P.M. opined that time elapsed since death and post mortem held was within 24 hours. The evidence of P.W. 9 indicates that the deceased died some time in the afternoon on 24-11-1984, whereas the prosecution case is that the murder was committed in the mid night of 23-11-1984. 12. Sri Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, however, contended that there is consistant evidence of the P.W s that the occurrence took place in the night of 23-11-1984. When there is conflict between medical evidence and ocular evidence, evidence of eye witnesses should be preferred. He placed his reliance in the case of Solanki Chiman Bhai Ukkabhai V/s. State of Gujrat,1 1983(2) SCC 174 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the testimony of eye witnesses would be preferable to medical evidence unless the medical evidence completely rules out eye witnesses versus. In the present case, medical evidence supports the prosecution case regarding the nature of injury sustained by the deceased. There is consistent evidence of the witnesses that the occurrence took place in the night. The case was supervised by the D.S.P. He did not find any infirmity in the manner of occurrence of this case. The opinion of Doctor (P.W.9) as to the time of death of the deceased is mere a guess. Therefore, the evidence of eye witness on the point of occurrence cannot be disbelieved or discarded. 13. In the last, Sri Khan contended that in the fardbeyan means of identification of the appellant is not mentioned. The alleged means of identification, Dhibri and torch were not shown to the I.O. during the investigation. The evidence on the torch is not consistent. The identification of the appellant in the tiny light of Dhibri was not possible. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.Ws. on the identification of the appellant in the alleged offence. He placed his reliance in the case of State of U.P. v. Jageshwar & Ors.2 1983(2) SC 305 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the identification of a group of 14/15 persons in a tiny light of lantern was improbable. on the identification of the appellant in the alleged offence. He placed his reliance in the case of State of U.P. v. Jageshwar & Ors.2 1983(2) SC 305 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the identification of a group of 14/15 persons in a tiny light of lantern was improbable. It is true, that identification of a group of 14/15 persons in a tiny lantern is not possible, but the identification of an accused who was known to the witnesses from before is quite possible in a tiny light from a close distance. In the present case, witness Kaili and Rama had occasion to identity the appellant from a very close distance when the appellant had gone to them to awake Veena who was sleeping alongwith them at the time of occurrence. Therefore, Kaili and Rama had no difficulty in identifying the appellant in the light of Dhibri which was burning in the room at the time of occurrence. The testimony of Kaili and Rama on the identification of the appellant cannot be discarded. 14. In this regard, reference may also be made to the case of Shakrti Patra & Ors. V/s. State of WB.,3 1981 Cr.L.J. 645. Wherein the Supreme Court has held that, where the prosecution witnesses testify that he had identified the accused in the light of torch held by him the presence of torch would not be said to be not proved on the ground that there was no mention of the torch in the F.I.R. or in the statement of witnesses before the police. When there was a direct testimony of other witnesses that when they reached the spot they found torch burning. In the present case, there is consistent evidence of P.W. 1 Jai Singh Mandal P.W. 4 Gaya Devi that they identified the appellant in the flash of torch light by Natho (P.W.5). P.W.2 Rama Devi has also corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 on the point of identification of the appellant in the flash of torch light flashed by her husband. She has said that the torch light falshed by her husband was two cell torch. P.W.2 Rama Devi has also corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 on the point of identification of the appellant in the flash of torch light flashed by her husband. She has said that the torch light falshed by her husband was two cell torch. Besides this the identification of appellant in the Dhibri is clearly proved from the evidence of I.O. P.W. 13 in para 16 wherein he has said that P.W. 3 had stated before him that she had identified the appellant in the light of Dhibri. The deceased was sleeping on a choky alongwith P.W. 2 and 3 and a Dhibri was burning there. When appellant pulled the saree of the deceased all the three woke up and identified the appellant. The testimony of the witnesses on the point of identification of the appellant therefore, cannot be disbelieved and discarded. 15. For the reasons, mentioned aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.