JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panra, J.—The three appellants, Kanshi Ram, Ram Parkasb and Lal Dhar, alias Lalla, before us are convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Sessions Case No- 7 of 1987 decided on 29-9-1989 and sentenced on various counts, as under: (a) All the appellants are convicted under section 302 read with section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each. In default of payment of fine, each one of them will suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. (b) They are convicted under section 394, I P.C and are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each. In default of payment of fine, each one of them will suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. (c) They are convicted under section 307, I PC. read with section 34, I.P.C. and are directed to be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each. In default of payment of fine, each one of them will suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. (d) They are further convicted under section 462, I PC. and each one of them is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs 500 each In default of payment of fine, each one of them will suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. (e) Kanshi Ram appellant is further convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and is sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year." All these sentences on all counts are directed to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. The relevant facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants are that on 22-10-1986 at about 6.45 p m. all the accused alongwith deceased Partap Singh, who was their associate, were seen at village Chauri and on the same day at about 7.30 p m. they alongwith deceased Partap Singh entered the house of Bihari Lal PW 3 and at that time accused Kanshi Ram was armed with pistol Ex. P-2, accused Lal Dhar was carrying a toy pistol Ex. P-4 and accused Ram Parkash was carrying knife Ex. P-2, accused Lal Dhar was carrying a toy pistol Ex. P-4 and accused Ram Parkash was carrying knife Ex. P-3 The further case of the prosecution is that accused Kanshi Ram snatched silver necklace from the possession of Kartaro Devi PW 5 whereas accused Ram Parkash snatched lady watch of Jiwan Devi deceased On Jiwan Devi having raised alarm, accused Kanshi Ram fired at her with his pistol Ex. P-3 which hit Jiwan Devi on her face and as a consequence thereof she died on the spot. All these accused allegedly threatened Kartaro Devi PW 5 and other occupants of the house to remain silent end to handover all valuable articles to them. The associate Partap Singh (deceased) was standing outside the door and he also threatened the occupants of the house that he would kill them if they tried to cone out of the house Kartaro Devi PW 5 grappled with Partap Singh deceased from his legs and he allegedly had given Takva Ex. P-5 blow on the head of Kartaro Devi PW 5. They struggled together. At that time Gayatri Devi PW 7. who was near the cow-shed raised alarm which attracted Bihari Lal PW 3 and Banarsi Dass PW 4. Both these witnesses also grappled with Partap Singh deceased. Partap Singh deceased snouted for help from accused Ramu and Lalu. In the meanwhile accused Lal Dhar had snatched Takva Ex. Po from Partap Singh deceased and started giving blows with the same to Kartaro Devi PW 5, but the blow struck on the head of Partap Singh deceased from the blunt side of Takva Ex P-5 as a result of which Partap Singh fell on the ground and ultimately he died on the spot. PW 3 Bihari Lal and PW 4 Banarsi Dass had also sustained injuries in their attempt to rescue Kartaro Devi PW 5. The accused had then fled away from the scene of occurrence. The public which had gathered there started pelting stones on them, as a result of which accused had fallen on the way and sustained certain injuries. While running away, accused Kanshi Ram had tired a shot from his pistol Ex. P-2 but it did not hit any one. PW 3 Bihari Lal lodged the report Ex. PF of the incident at police station Sujanpur on the night of 22-1J-1986 at about 9 5pm. While running away, accused Kanshi Ram had tired a shot from his pistol Ex. P-2 but it did not hit any one. PW 3 Bihari Lal lodged the report Ex. PF of the incident at police station Sujanpur on the night of 22-1J-1986 at about 9 5pm. The investigation was conducted by A.S I. Bhag Sinah PW 29 of police station Sujanpur after visiting the spot. Before proceeding to the spot, PW 29 had informed the Deputy superintendent of Police Shri T.S Sain on telephone about the incident and requested the Chief Medical Officer to send one ambulance to Chaun, mat is, the place of occurrence in order to shift the injured persons to the hospiui PW 29 allegedly had reached at the spot at about 10.30 or 11 p.m. on 22-10-1986. On reaching the spot he sent the injured Kartaro Devi PW 5 to the hospital in the ambulance and also sent rukka Ex PAF. Since it was late in the night, no investigation was effected during the night which was started only on the next morning. The investigating officer got the spot photographed through Jagat Kaoi PW 16. He also got prepared a site plan from Halqa Patwari Sukh Ram PW . Takva Ex. P-5 We found lying near the dead-body of Partap Singh which was taken into possession. One empty cartridge and one mis-ired cartridge was all taken into possession from the spot alongwito leather bag Ex. P-20 ha d bag kit Ex P-22 in which diary Ex. P-21 was found, vide seizure memo Ex PK in the presence of recovery witnesses Vijay Kumar and Kuldi Singh PW 8. The investigating officer also took into possession blood stained earth from the spot as per seizure memo. The dead-body Jiwan Devi was found lying in the verandan of the house. Near the dead-body there was found spent up cartridge which was also take6 into possession. All the three cartridges Ex. P-14 to P-t6 were packed and sealed in separate parcels and Takva was also separately packed sealed The wall of bed room was found to have blood stained impression of hand. The A.S.I, scratched the earth of that portion of the wall and took the same into possession. The blood stained clothes of Bihari Lal PW 3 which are shirt P-6, Pyjama P-7 were also taken into possession vide recovery memo. The A.S.I, scratched the earth of that portion of the wall and took the same into possession. The blood stained clothes of Bihari Lal PW 3 which are shirt P-6, Pyjama P-7 were also taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex PG and of Banarsi Dass PW 4 which are shirt Ex- P-10 and Pyjama Ex. P-11 were also taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PH Site plan Ex. PAG was also prepared and sketch Takva Ex P5 is Ex PAH Inquest report Takva Ex. P-5 is Ex. PAH. Inquest report regarding Partap Singh deceased Ex. PY and an application Ex. PY/1 were sent for postmortem examination to the doctor about the dead-body of Partap Singh H had conducted inquest proceedings of Jiwan Devi deceased which Ex. PB and sent the dead-body of Jiwan Devi alongwitn an application Ex. PA/1 for postmortem examination. Dr. N. K.. Galoda PW 1 had conducted the postmortem of the dead-body of Jiwan Devi and his postmortem report Is Ex. PA. Dr R K Patyal PW 22 had conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Partap Singh. The carbon copy of postmortem report is Ex PX, The clothes of Partap Singh deceased were handed over to the police which were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ex. PC/1. The investigating officer had also taken into possession blood stained shirt Ex P-12 and Salwar Ex P-13 of Kartaro Devi PW 5 vide recovery memo. Ex PI. Jagdish Chand Sharma PW 28, who was at the relevant time posted as S H.O. Hamirptir, had been ordered by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Baniirpur, to do Nakabandi to apprehend the accused, who after committing the murder and robbery at Citauri had absconded. He was deputed to do the operation work of Nakabandi at the road side at the place known K.ot to Chauri where the other members of the police party were already present. On 23-10-1986 at about 5.30 a m. wben he was doing Nakabandi operation alongwith other police officers at a place known as Kang-di-Chhir, the accused persons were noticed coming from Jungle side The further case of the prosecution is that oa seeing the police party they had tried to escape but were apprehended. On 23-10-1986 at about 5.30 a m. wben he was doing Nakabandi operation alongwith other police officers at a place known as Kang-di-Chhir, the accused persons were noticed coming from Jungle side The further case of the prosecution is that oa seeing the police party they had tried to escape but were apprehended. The accused persons disclosed their respective names to the ».H O. Accused Kanshi Ram was found suspending a Jhola (bag) on bis shoulder and on search of the same one country made pistol with one 12 bore live cartridge was recovered. On bis personal search from his right pocket one silver necklace was recovered. The said pistol, cartridge and necklace which were identified later on are Ex P-2, P-38 and P-9 respectively and were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo. Ex PZ. On search of accused Ram Parkash knife Ex. P-3 and wrist watch Ex. P-8 were recovered from his possession and the same were separately packed and sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PZ/1. Nothing was, however, recovered on personal search of accused Lal Dhar. After the arrest, all the accused were taken by Jagdish Chand PW 28 to Chauri where the incident had occurred. The clothes of the accused persons were also found blood stained and the same were got removed from their person and packed and sealed. Shirt Ex tf-23, Pant Ex. P-24 and sweater Ex. P-25 were the clothes removed from the person of accused Kanshi Ram. Shirt Ex. P-26, Pant Ex. P-27 and sweater Ex P-28 were the clothes removed from the person of accused Ram Parkash and the shirt Ex. P-29 and Pant Ex. P-30 were the clothes removed from the person of accused Lal Dhar which were sealed and taken into possession vide seizure memo. Ex. PL, PM and PN respectively. The clothes of the accused so taken into possession by PW 28 were handed over by him to A.S.I- Bhag Singh PW 29 of Police Station Sujanpur. During investigation of Ram Parkash accused by PW 28 on 25-10-1986 in the presence of Jaswant RaJ PW 11 and Om Parkash PW 17, he made a disclosure statement Ex. PP to the effect that he and Partap Singh deceased had kept one brief case containing his dotbes as also of other co-accused in a shop in Partap Gali, Hamirpur and he could get the same recovered. PP to the effect that he and Partap Singh deceased had kept one brief case containing his dotbes as also of other co-accused in a shop in Partap Gali, Hamirpur and he could get the same recovered. Accused Lal Dhar on interrogation had also made a disclosure statement Ex. PQ to the effect that he had thrown a toy pistol near the bus-stop Chauri in grass and he could get the same recovered from that place Accused Ram Parkash bad allegedly led the police party to the shop of Jaswant Singh PW lo in Partap Gali, Hamirpur and got recovered brief case Ex. P-31 which contained bed sheet Ex. P-32, Safari Suite Ex. P-33, Pant Ex. P-34, Bushirt Ex. P-35, ; hirt Ex. P-36 Pyjama Ex. P-37 and the same was taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo. Ex, PC. Lal Dhar accused bad also led the police party to Chauri and got recovered the toy pistol Ex. P-4 which was taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo. Ex. PR. PW 28 prepared the site plan of the piace of recovery of the toy pistol which is Ex PAC and also sketch of the toy pistol which is Ex. PAD He bad also prepared the site plan of the shop of Jaswant Singh PW 10 which is Ex. PAE. Necklace Ex. P-9 and wrist watch Ex. P 8 were got identified in test identification parade before the Executive Magistrate, Hamirpur, from Bihari Lal PW 3 and Kartaro Devi PW 5. 4. At the hospital Dr. P. C. Gupta PW 21 had examined injured Kartaro Devi PW 5 as per medico-legal certificate Ex PW and Dr N. K. Shaima PW 2 had examined accused Kanshi Ram, Rara Parkash, Lal Dhar and also Banarsi Dess and Bibari Lal PWs for the injuries found on their person. The articles preserved and sealed during investigation by the Investigating Officer and the Medics Officer were sent to Chemical Examiner by the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur for chemical analysis and opinion. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Ex. PAK and of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory Chandigarh is Ex PAL. After the completion of the investigation, a challan was put up against the accused and they were tried by the trial court for the offences as stated above. 5. In support of their case the prosecution examined 31 witnesses. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Ex. PAK and of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory Chandigarh is Ex PAL. After the completion of the investigation, a challan was put up against the accused and they were tried by the trial court for the offences as stated above. 5. In support of their case the prosecution examined 31 witnesses. The accused had pleaded cot guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. In their statements under Sec 313, Cr. P C the accused persons had stated that they have been falseiy implicated in the case. Accused Kanshi Ram stated that he had come to Himachal Pradesh in connection with his business of preparing chairs Prior to that he used to do business in Punjab. Accused Ram Parkash has stated that he is a poor man and used to work as labourer at Knanna in Punjab and due to terrorist activities he came to Hiniachal Pradesh to work as labourer. He stated that he did not know the other accused persons nor any one of the accused knew him. Accused Lal Dbar has stated that he used to work as beicar ana Palledar at Nangal in Punjab and on account of terrorist activities he came to Hamirpur and was arrested at the bus stand. Accused examined three witnesses in defence, namely, Parkash Chand, Reader to Judicial Magistrate (II) Hamirpur as DW 1, who had deposed about the endorsement Ex PF/i on the F I. R. Ex. PF bearing signatures of Shri J. C. Sood, Judicial Magistrate (!) Hamirpur. DW 2 Kanshi Ram is Hcadconstable and he produced rapat Rozaamcha from 22-10-8986 to 26-104986. He deposed that he did not find mention of the investigation having been transferred from S. H. O Sujanpur to S HO. Haroirpur in respect of the present case In the said rapat Roznatncha. DW 3 is Bidhi Chand H. M. C. whose statement is also similar to that of Kanshi Ram DW 2. This witness further stated that rapat No. 30 dated 22-1O-J986 shows that D. S P. had desired the S. H. O. Hamirpur to accompany the former to the place of occurrence at village Chauri which was within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sujanpur, since certain culprits bad escaped from that place after commission of offence of murder and a Nakabandi had to be organised aloagwith other police force to apprehend the culprits. Me proved the report Ex-PX- Tlse learned trial Court aftei appreciating the evidence the convicted bad accused and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment as aforesaid. 6. We have heard Shri J. K« Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri M. L. Cbauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General and have considered the entire evidence in detail and examinee ail the material circumstances which had weighed with the trial Court in believing the prosecution story and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has fully proved the case against the appellants in this case. 7. Shri J. K. Verraa, learned Counsel for the appellants took us through the relevant evidence and the judgment of the court below. The argument pressed by him in support of this appeal was that the learned trial Court had, on the basis of evidence, come to a conclusion not justified by the evidence on record. He has contended that the identification of the appellants was doubtful and no identification parade was conducted by the prosecution. He further contended that there is an inordinate delay in sending the F I R. to the Ilaqa Magistrate inasmuch as the F I. R. was lodged on 22-0-1986 at 9 05 p m. and the same was received by the Magistrate on 2310-1986 at 4.15 p.m. He further contended that the injuries sustained by the appellants have not been explained by the prosecution and the accused are entitled for acquittal. He has also contended that the investigation was conducted by PW 28, S H. O. Haruirpur, who had no jurisdiction to conduct the investigation of the offence committed within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sujanpur. ; 8. In the present case there is direct evidence of the persons who had witnessed the occurrence. The eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution are Bihari Lal PW 3, Banarsi Dass PW 4, Kartaro Devi PW 5, Sukanya Devi PW 6 and Gayatri Devi PW 7 PW 3 is the informant who had lodged the F. I. R. at the Police station. He deposed that he was running a Karyana shop at Chauri and that his mother Kartaro Devi PW 5 and his wife Sukanya Devi PW 6 and his sister Gayatri Devi PW 7 alongwith the children resided at his house. He deposed that on the date of the incident his elder sister Jiwan Devi (deceased) had visited his house and stayed with them. He deposed that on the date of the incident his elder sister Jiwan Devi (deceased) had visited his house and stayed with them. He stated that his cousin Banarsi Dass PW 4 had informed him at about 6 45 p m. on the date of occurrence that deceased Partap Singh alongwith his three companion were talking some thing with each other and so be became alert. At about 7 15 p. m. the electricity of the area went off and he proceeded to contact lineman Karam Cband PW 15. Karam Cband PW 15 was taken by him on his scooter to a place where the transformer was installed and the lineman repaired the electricity. He deposed that in the meantime his sister Gayatri Devi PW 7 raised alarm to the effect that thieves had fired and he rushed to his house. When he reached at his house he found his mother Kartaro Devi PW 5 grappling with Partap Singh of ceased from his legs. His testimony shows that his cousin Banarsi Dass PW 4 also reached at the spot at that time and he also caught hold of Partap Singh deceased. He stated that in the meanwhile all the three accused identified by him in the court had come out from his house Partap Singh deceased had then shouted that Kamu and Lala should rescue him from the clutches of Kartaro Devi PW 5 and Banarsi Dass PW 4, otherwise they would also be not saved. He deposed that Kanshi Ram accused was carrying pistol with a long handle whereas accused Lal Dhar was carrying one knife and accused Ram Parkash was carrying a small toy pistol. He identified country made pistol Ex. P-2, knife Ex. F-3 and toy pistol Ex. P-4. His further testimony is that accused had fired at them with the pistol but the shot did not hit any one of them. One of the accused had snatched Takwa Ex. P-5 from Partap Singh deceased and aimed blows on them with the weapon. He identified Takwa Ex. P-5 to be the san e which was being carried by deceased Partap Singh. He further slated that one of the accused had snatched Takwa Ex. One of the accused had snatched Takwa Ex. P-5 from Partap Singh deceased and aimed blows on them with the weapon. He identified Takwa Ex. P-5 to be the san e which was being carried by deceased Partap Singh. He further slated that one of the accused had snatched Takwa Ex. P-5 from Partap Singh and aimed blow on them but they saved themselves by dodging and the Takwa blows had struck Partap Singh 2-3 times from blunt side Meanwhile, many persons had collected at the place of occurrence. Partap Sineh after receiving Takwa blows bad fallen after he had slipped His testimony further shows that the accused then escaped from the spot in the darkness and villagers had started pelting stones on them. This witness further deposed that in this incident his sister Jiwan Devi bad died on the spot whereas his mother Kartaro Devi PW 5 had sustained injuries and had become unconscious He deposed that his wife Sukanya Devi PW 6 and his sister Gayatri Devi PW 7 had informed him that accused persons had taken away silver necklace of his mother Kartaro Devi PW 5. He further deposed that he then proceeded to Police Station Sujanpur and lodged the F. I R. Ex PF. He deposed that he had also sustained injuries in the incident. His shirt Ex. P-6 acd Pyjama Ex. P-7 were also taken into possession by the police and the same bad been stained with blood. He identified the wrist watch Ex P-8 and the silver necklace Ex. P-9. He deposed in his cross-examination that he reached the police station at about 9 p. m. and his report was recorded immediately on his arrival at the police station. He stated that the accused had run away from their house after the incident towards village Kot. His further version is that Sujanpur Police Station is at a distance of about (4-15 Kilometers from the place of occurrence by motorable road and deceased Partap Singh belonged to his village. He stated that the accused had run away from their house after the incident towards village Kot. His further version is that Sujanpur Police Station is at a distance of about (4-15 Kilometers from the place of occurrence by motorable road and deceased Partap Singh belonged to his village. He denied the suggestion of the defence as incorrect that deceased Partap Singh was accompanied by some other three persons that accused who escaped from the place of occurrence He further denied the suggestion that Partap Singh was killed by his family members alongwith other villagers by stick blows and by pelting stones He, however, admitted that his mother Kartaro Devi PW 5 was suitably rewarded for her bravery in giving fights to the dacoits and for killing one of them. He denied the suggestion that the culprits were not identified at the time of incident by them. 9. PW 4 Banarsi Dass deposed that he had seen Partap Singh deceased who belonged to his village alongwith the accused persons on the date of the occurrence. He got suspicious as earlier on 2-10-1986 theft had taken place at the house of Ft. Brabant Dass of his village in which Partap Singh deceased and the accused persons were suspected He corroborated PW 3 Bihari Lal on the factum of having informed him to inform the police about these persons moving in the area. He deposed that at about 7.30 p. m he was in his house. He heard gun shot fire and reached at the spot. He saw that Kartaro Devi PW 5 had caught held of Partap Singh deceased from his legs and Partap Singh was giving Takwa blows to her. He deposed that other three accused were present in the court-yard. According to the version of this witness he also caught hold of Partap Singh deceased who continued giving Takwa blows to them. He deposed that all the three accused persons pounced upon them and grappled with them He deposed that Kanshi Rarn accused was carrying a country made pistol whereas Lal Dhar was carrying a toy pistol and Ram Parkash was carrying a knife. He deposed that after the accused persons bad grappled with them, Partap Singh deceased shouted that Kanshi, Ramu and Lala should save Partap Singh from the clutches of the witnesses, otherwise they would also not be saved. He deposed that after the accused persons bad grappled with them, Partap Singh deceased shouted that Kanshi, Ramu and Lala should save Partap Singh from the clutches of the witnesses, otherwise they would also not be saved. He deposed that accused Lal Dhar then snatched Takwa from Partap Singh and gave blows with the blunt side of the same which struck Partap Singh, Kartaro Devi PW 5 and this witness. He further deposed that Jiwan Devi aud Partap Singh had died at the spot. He stated that his clothes that is, shirt Ex. P-10 and pyjama Ex. P-11 were stained with blood and the same were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo. Ex. PH. In cross-examination this witness has admitted that only Partap Singh deceased was arrested in case of theft at the house of Pt. Brabam Dass. He stated that his statement was recorded by the police at about 10 a. m on the next day of the occurrence and the accused had aiready been arrested and had seen the accused who were brought to the spot by the police. He further stated that he had seen all the accused persons for the first time on the date of the incident. He, however, denied the suggestion that the description of the accused was given by him to the police after he had seen them after their arrest. 10. PW 5 KarSaro Devi, the injured, stated that at about 7.30 p m. on the date of occurrence all the three accused catered their house, whereas Panap Singh deceased stood outside the room in the courtyard. Accused Kanshi Ram was carrying a country made pistol Ex. P-2 whereas Ram Paikash was carrying a toy pistol Ex. P-4 and accused Lal Dhar was carrying knife Ex. P-3. She deposed that accused bad snatched her silver necklace and a wrist watch from her daughter Jiwan Devi She had then raised alarm and a pistol shot was fired which hit her daughter Jiwao Devi on her face and she died on the spot. She further deposed that the accused threatened them to remain silent and to handover ail the valuable articles to them. She further deposed that the accused threatened them to remain silent and to handover ail the valuable articles to them. Partap Singh deceased was standing outside the door and he also threatened that he would see them if they tried to come oat of the house She deposed that she grappled with Partap Singh deceased from his legs and Partap Singh gave blows on her head with Takwa Ex. P-5 and both of them struggled for some time. She further deposed that Gayatri Devi PW 7 who was at the cow shed raised alarm which attracted Bihari Lal PW 3 and Banarai Dass PW 4 and they also started grappling with Partap Singh deceased. Partap Singh deceased then shouted Karisbi, Ramu and Lala to save him from their clutches Accused Lal Dbar had snatched Takwa from Partap Singh deceased and gave blows with the same to them, but the blow struck at the head of Partap Singh from the blunt side and Partap Singh fell on the ground. She deposed that she had sustained injuries on her head as well as on her back and had become unconscious. She deposed about her having handed over to the police the blood stained clothes, being Salwar Ex. P-12 and shirt Ex. P-11 which were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PL She deposed that she had identified necklace Ex. P-9 and wrist watch Ex. P-8 before the Executive Magistrate PW 13. In cross-examination she stated that as soon as the electricity light was restored the accused persons had entered their house and that the pistol shot was fired from a close range and the accused was standing by the side of her daughter Jiwan Devi. She admitted having been rewarded for her bravery for facing the dacoits and for killing one of them She denied the suggestion that the present accused were not involved in the incident and further that Partap Singh deceased was suspected and the villagers killed him in retaliation. 11. The next eye-witness is Sukanya Devi PW 6, who is wife of Bihari Lal PW 3. She deposed that on 22-10-1986 her sister-in-law Jiwan Devi had visited their house and ali of a sudden electricity supply had gone off. Her husband had then left the house to contact the lineman for restoration of the electricity light. 11. The next eye-witness is Sukanya Devi PW 6, who is wife of Bihari Lal PW 3. She deposed that on 22-10-1986 her sister-in-law Jiwan Devi had visited their house and ali of a sudden electricity supply had gone off. Her husband had then left the house to contact the lineman for restoration of the electricity light. Her sister-in-law Gayatri Devi PW 7 was attendiog the cattle in the cow shed and electricity was also restored. The accused at that time entered their house and Kanshi Ram accused was carrying pistol Ex. P-2, Lal Dhar was carrying toy pistol Ex. P-4 and Ram Parkash accused was carrying knife. She further deposed that accused had threatened her mother-in-law Kartaro Devi PW 3 to part with all the valuable articles and her sister-in-law Jeewan Devi, who was preparing meals at that time, was also attracted by the noise and came at the spot. She deposed that accused had snatched necklace from her mother-in-law and wrist watch from her sister-in-law Jiwan Devi Jeewan Devi then tried to raise alarm on which accused Kanshi Ram fired from his pistol and killed her. In the meanwhile, Partap Singh deceased shouted at her mother-in-law and threatened that nobody will leave the house. She deposed that three accused had approached towards kitchen side and threatened this witness and asked her to part with the valuable articles, but she had replied that she had delivered a child recently and had no valuable articles with her. She stated that she remained in the room and in the meanwhile heard one gun shot fire from the courtyard. She came to know that her sister-in-law Jiwan Devi was killed in this incident She stated in her cross-examination that she had been attending the court on previous hearings and she had been seeing the accused persons in the litigation shed She had admitted that she had not been joined in any test identification parade. 12. The last eye-witness of the occurrence is Oayatri Devi PW 7. She deposed that on 22-50 1986 at about 7.30 p m. she was attending to the cattle in the cow shed when she heard gun shot fire. She also heard shrieks and she rushed towards the house and found her mother Kartaro Devi PW 5 grappling with Partap Singh deceased from his legs who was giving Takwa blows to her. She deposed that on 22-50 1986 at about 7.30 p m. she was attending to the cattle in the cow shed when she heard gun shot fire. She also heard shrieks and she rushed towards the house and found her mother Kartaro Devi PW 5 grappling with Partap Singh deceased from his legs who was giving Takwa blows to her. She further deposed that as soon as she entered the room she found her sister Jiwan Devi lying on the floor with gun injuries. She further deposed that in the meantime the three accused came outside the room to the courtyard and she ran away with a view to call her brother and returned after some time and found some villagers collected at the spot. The accused persons had run away from the spot and Partap Singh was lying on the ground. In her cross-examination she admitted that Partap Singh deceased was considered as a thief in the area and she could not say that Partap Singh was killed by the villagers. 13. PW 15 Karam Chand had corroborated thejfact that electricity had gone off in the area at about 7 15 p. m. on the date of occurrence and the same was restored by him after he was taken by Bihari Lal PW 4 on his scooter to the place where the transformer was installed. He further deposed that Bihari Lal had tried to convey information on telephone but in the meantime there was gun shot fire at his house and his sister also came running and Bihari Lal rushed to his house. 14 The medical evidence corroborated the ocular version of the eye-witnesses. Dr. N. K. Galoda PW 1 who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead-body of Jiwan Devi had found that Jiwan Devi had died due to fire-arm injuries leading to shock and head injury. According to this witness right eye of Jiwan Devi was found collapsed. Base of the right orbit was fractured. There was haematoma in right temporal region extending over to the postauri-cular region. Bleeding in the right ear was present. Laceration 2 cm. x 1 cm- over the upper part of right pinna. No wound in the region of haematoma. Multiple lacerated wounds of variable size and shapes (eliptical roundish and tangential. Size C.5 cm. to 1.5 and 2 cm. with width of 0.5 to 1 cm. Bleeding in the right ear was present. Laceration 2 cm. x 1 cm- over the upper part of right pinna. No wound in the region of haematoma. Multiple lacerated wounds of variable size and shapes (eliptical roundish and tangential. Size C.5 cm. to 1.5 and 2 cm. with width of 0.5 to 1 cm. Spread over the right side of face i. e right side of fore-head, nose, infra-orbital region, cheek and just in front of the ear. Tattoing of the margins was present. One of the laceration through and through the cheek. Fracture right maxilla present. Right maxillary sinus laid open 2 5x2 cm. reddish blue bluish just below the right knee During the postmortem three pallets were recovered. One from the right side of fore head corresponding to the wounds lying against the frontal bone and two from the maxillary sinus The pallets were Ex. P-I. The probable duration between death and injury was 0.12 hours and between death and postmortem within 24 hours. The report of the postmortem examination is Ex. PA. The medical evidence corroborated the ocular version of Kartaro Devi PW 5 to the effect that shot of pistol had hit her daughter Jiwan Devi on her face. 15. The ocular version of the eye-witness is to the effect that Kartaro Devi PW 5 had grappled with deceased Partap Singh and so also Bihari Lal PW 3 and Banarsi Dass PW 4. In such grappling Bihari Lal PW 3 and Banarsi Dass PW 4 had sustained injuries and also accused Kanshi Ram, Ram Parkash and Lal Dhar had sustained injuries. The ocularr version stands corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. N. K. Sharma PW 2, who on 23-10-1986 had examined accused Kanshi Ram, Ram Parkasb and Lal Dhar and also PWs Banarsi Dass and Bihari Lal. As per PW 2, Dr. N. K. Sharma, he had found the following injuries on the person of Kanshi Ram accused— 1. Swelling over the right fore-arm. On its dorsal surface 1" proximal to the wrist joint on its redial size, 2" x 1" tender on pressure. No discolouration of skin overlying it Underlying bones were normal. 2. An oval swelling over the scalp were normal. Left parieto occipital region 1" x Hi" tender on palpation. No discolouration over it. No bleeding. Banes underlying normal. 3. On its dorsal surface 1" proximal to the wrist joint on its redial size, 2" x 1" tender on pressure. No discolouration of skin overlying it Underlying bones were normal. 2. An oval swelling over the scalp were normal. Left parieto occipital region 1" x Hi" tender on palpation. No discolouration over it. No bleeding. Banes underlying normal. 3. There was a band of reddish discolouration over the right side of back of the chest, horizontly placed along the Tenth rib Reddish at margin, pale in ths centre, 4" x ill" in size. Underlying bones normal. 4. A similar band 3" x 1/2" over the left back of the chest. 5. Complains of paid left shoulder. No swelling mild discolouration with small abrasion over it present. 6. Reddish discolouration band 3" x 1/2" over right leg and same size over the left leg. 16. According to PW 2 injuries No. 1 to 6 were simple and the duration of the injuries was within 24 hours and the kind of weapon used was blunt. According to this witness injuries No. 1 and 2 could be caused due to struggle and injuries No. 3 to 6 could be caused by blunt stones. 17. On examination of Ram Parkash accused, this witness had found the following injuries on his person \— 1. There was reddish coloured band 3" x 1/2" over the left thigh 4" x 1/2" borizontly placed from the lateral aspect to the front of it in the mid of thigh. No oozing, no abrasioo. It was tendered on palpation. Underlying bones were normal. 2. Complained of pain left thumb. No discolouration of skin on it was mild tender and movements. There was no evidence of fracture. 18. The injuries were found simple. The kind of weapon used was blunt and the duration of the injuries was about 24 hours. 19. On examination of Lal Dhar accused, the doctor had found the following injuries on his person — 1. Abrasion over the dorsum of left little ring and little finger with dried blood stains over it. Fingers were tender, swollen. There was crepitus over the little finger. 2. The whole of right foot was swollen had few abrasion over its dorsum and was tendered on palpation. 3. Complained of pain in lower back, sacral region. There was no evidence of injury over the site. Fingers were tender, swollen. There was crepitus over the little finger. 2. The whole of right foot was swollen had few abrasion over its dorsum and was tendered on palpation. 3. Complained of pain in lower back, sacral region. There was no evidence of injury over the site. X-ray was advised for left hand and right foot injuries and vide-X-ray report No. MLC 2582-83/86 dated 20-10-1986 reported by Radiologist Dr. P. C. Gupta, District Hospital, Hamirpur. 20. According to the opinion of the doctor injury No. 2 was found grievous and the rest of the injuries were found simple. Injury No. 1 according to this witness could be caused by struggle and injury No. 2 could be caused by fall or by pelting stones. 21. The doctor has found injuries on the person of Banarsi Dass and Bihari Lal PWs also. On the person of Banarsi Dass the doctor found the following injuries 1. An abrasion over the right side of the neck, reddish in colour. 2. Complains of tenderness over right side of the chest well. 3. Small abrasion over the right hand on its dorsum at the base of the middle finger. 22. According to this witness all the injuries were simple having been caused within the duration of 24 hours by a blunt weapon. He proved the Medico-legal certificate Ex. PB and stated that these injuries could be caused by struggle. 23. On the person of Bibari Lal this witness had found the following injuries; 1. There was swelling over the lower lip with tenderness over it having corresponding injury over its under surface and gums ? No bleeding was present. 2. Complained of pain over the multiple sites over the back and chest but there was no external mark of injury over these sites, 3. There was tenderness over the infra memory region on right side of the chest. No discolouration of skin over the site. 4. There was small abrasion over the back of the chest, in the intra-scapular area was reddish in colour. 24. According to the opinion of this witness all the injuries were simple having been caused within the duration of 24 hours with a blunt weapon. He proved the Medico-legal certificate Ex. PE in this behalf. 25. Dr. 4. There was small abrasion over the back of the chest, in the intra-scapular area was reddish in colour. 24. According to the opinion of this witness all the injuries were simple having been caused within the duration of 24 hours with a blunt weapon. He proved the Medico-legal certificate Ex. PE in this behalf. 25. Dr. P. C. Gupta PW 21 had examined Kartaro Devi PW 5 on 23-10-1986 at 12.45 p. m. and found the following injuries on her person— 1. 6crn. X 2 cm. bone deep, C. L. W. right parieto-occipital region. 2. 10 cm. X 2.5 cm. bone deep, C. L. W. left parieto region. 3. 2 cm. X 2 cm. bone deep, C. L. W. mid-scalp. 4. 4 cm. x 2 cm. bone deep, C. L. W. right parietal region. 5. 5 cm. X 2.5 cm. bone deep, C. L. W. left parietal region. 6. 3 cm. x 1.5 cm. C. L. W. lateral angle of left eye. 7. 2 cm. X 1 cm. size C L. W. right frontal region. 26. According to this witness the nature of injuries was found simple caused by a blunt weapon within the duration of less than 12 hours. He opined that the injuries could be caused by Takwa Ex. P-5 from any side except the sharp edged side. 27. PW 28 Jagdish Chand Sharma, who was at the relevant time S. H O at Police station Hamirpur had arrested the accused on 23-10-1986 at about 5.3o a. m He deposed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had deputed him alongwith other police officers for a Nakabandi of the accused persons who had fled away from the place of occurrence after committing murder and robbery at Village Chauri. According to the testimony of this witness, he alongwith other police officers were present at a place known as Kang-di-Chhir. Three persons were noticed coming from jungle side and on seeing the police party, they tried to escape. They were apprehended and they disclosed their names to this witness. He deposed that Kanshi Ram accused had suspended a Jhola (bag) on his shoulder. On search one country made pistol with one 12 bore live cartridge was recovered from the bag of Kanshi Ram and on his personal search one silver necklace was found from the right pocket of his trousers. He deposed that Kanshi Ram accused had suspended a Jhola (bag) on his shoulder. On search one country made pistol with one 12 bore live cartridge was recovered from the bag of Kanshi Ram and on his personal search one silver necklace was found from the right pocket of his trousers. One old Romer watch which was found tied in left wrist of the accused was also recovered besides other articles, vide recovery memo. Ex. PZ. 28. The report of the Assistant Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, is Ex. PAL which report shows that the Laboratory had received sealed cloth parcel of one 12 bore country made pistol and one 12 bore cartridge marked A and L/l respectively and another sealed cloth parcel of two 12 bore fired cartridges and one misfired cartridge marked C/t, C/2 and L/2 respectively and one another sealed parcel of lead pieces (pellets) It may be pertinent to state here that the lead pieces (pallets) were recovered by Dr. N K. Galoda PW 1 from the dead-body of Jiwan Devi deceased at the time of conducting the postmortem and were handed over to the police. The report Ex PAL shows that 12 bore cartridge marked C/l and C/2 have been filed through the 12 bore country made pistol marked A and they could not have been fired through any other fire arm and the pallets could also have been fired through the 12 bore country made pistol marked *A\ It is established from the report that two 12 bore fire cartridges which have been recovered from the spot by the investigating Officer PW 29 Bhag Singh and the pallets which were re-covered from the dead body of Jiwan Devi, had been fired from pistol Ex. P-2, which was recovered from the possession of accused Kanshi Ram vide recovery memo. Ex PZ. It amply shows that accused Kanshi Ram was one of the accused and had participated in the commission of offence in which Jiwan Devi had died on account of pistol shot and other witnesses aforementioned had sustained injuries. Necklace Ex. P-9 was also recovered from the possession of Kanshi Ram accused and the wrist watch Ex P-8 was also recovered from the possession of accused Ram Parkash besides one knife Ex. P-3 as per seizure memo. Ex. PZ/1. Test identification parade in respect of these articles, that is, necklace Ex. Necklace Ex. P-9 was also recovered from the possession of Kanshi Ram accused and the wrist watch Ex P-8 was also recovered from the possession of accused Ram Parkash besides one knife Ex. P-3 as per seizure memo. Ex. PZ/1. Test identification parade in respect of these articles, that is, necklace Ex. P-9 and wrist watch Ex. P-8 was held by Laxmi Dutt, Executive Magistrate who aDDear-ed as PW 13 Bihari Lal PW 3 and Kartaro Devi PW 5 had identiK the above mentioned articles before the Executive Magistrate. 29. Consequent upon the disclosure statement Ex. P-2 made by accused Ram Parkash in the presence of Jaswant Rai PW 11 and Om Parkash PW 17, attache case Ex. P 31 was recovered from the shop of Jaswant Singh PW 10 which contained bed sheet Ex. P-32 and other clothes Ex. P-33 to P-37. The same we.e taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo. Ex, PO. Jaswant Singh PW 10 deposed that he knew Partap Singh deceased who used to purchase sweet meats from him He further deposed that on 22-10-1986 Partap Singh deceased had visited his shop along with accused Ram Parkasn and had left attache case Ex. P-31 at his shop stating that he would take the same on the next day The recovery of stolen articles such as necklace Ex. P-9 from the possession of accused Kanshi Ram and wrist watch Ex. P-8 from the possession of accused Ram Parkash coupled with the fact that cartridges recovered from the spot and pallets recovered from the dead body of Jiwan Devi, found to have been fired from the 12 bore pistol Ex. P-2 which was recovered from the possession of Kanshi Ram accused, amply proves that both the accused had participated in the commission of the crime and they were algo identified by the eye-witnesses in the Court. Consequent upon the disclosure statement Ex. PQ having been made by accused Lal Dhar in the presence of Jaswant Rai PW 11 and Om Parkash PW 17, he got recovered toy pistol from a place near the shop of Bihari Lai in village Chauri as per recovery memo. Ex, PR witnessed by Ajudhya Dass PW 12 and Munshi Ram PW 23. This toy pistol was identified as Ex. Ex, PR witnessed by Ajudhya Dass PW 12 and Munshi Ram PW 23. This toy pistol was identified as Ex. P-4 by the witnesses Banarsi Dass PW 4 and Suknya Devi PW 6 have categorically stated that Lai Dhar accused was carrying toy pistol Ex. P-4 at the time of the incident. Although there is a minor discrepancy in the testimony of eve witnesses to the effect that Kartaro Devi PW 5 has stated that accused Ram Parkash was carrying toy pistol Ex P-4 and Lai Dhar was carrying knife Ex. P-3, yet, that could be due to the reason of fading of memory on account of a long interval between the date of occurrence and the examination of the witnesses in the Court. Testimony of Baaarsi Dass PW 4 and Kartaro Devi PW 5 also showed that when Kaftaro Devi had grappled with deceased Partap Singh who was also an associate of the accused, Partap Singh had shouted that Kanshi, Ramu and Lala should save him otherwise they would also be not saved, Biihari Lal PW 3 also stated that Partap Singh shouted that Ramu and Lala should rescue him from the clutches of the witnesses otherwise they would also not be saved. The testimony of these witnesses clearly established the identity of the accused persons participating in the commission of the crime From the record it is found that there is some discrepancy in the statement of Jagdish Chand Sharma PW 28, A S I Bhalku Ram PW 25 and A.S.I. Kashmir Singh PW 24 According to Kashmir Singh PW 24 and Bhalku Ram PW 25, who were also members of the Nakabandi party alongwifh Jagdish Chand PW 28, only two accused, namely, Kanshi Ram and Ram Parkash were apprehended when they were found climbing Kung-di-Chhir, where as according to Jagdish Chand PW 28, who was heading the Nakabandi party, all the three accused were noticed at Kung-di-Chhir when they were coming from jungle side and were apprehended there. The accused were arrested at Kung di-Chhir some time between 5.30 or 6.30 a. m on 23-10-1989. The accused were arrested at Kung di-Chhir some time between 5.30 or 6.30 a. m on 23-10-1989. These contradictions are immaterial because of the fact that by lapse of time Bhalku Ram PW 25 and Kashmir Singh PW 24 might have omitted to mention the arrest of accused Lal Dhar also at Kung-di-Chhir, especially when no recovery was effected from Lal Dhar at that time and whereas from other two accused persons on their personal search recoveries as aforesaid were effected. The prosecution has proved that after the arrest of the accused they were taken to Chauri and the testimony of PW 4 Banarsi Dass and PW 8 Kuldip Singh shows that all the accused after arrest had been brought to Chauri at about 10 a. m. PW 8 Kuldip Singh has stated that blood stained clothes of accused Kansbi Ram, Ram Parkash and Lal Dhar were taken into possession by the police on 23-10-1986 in his presence vide seizure memo. Ex. PL, PM and PN respectively. 30. The evidence of the witnesses and other documentary evidence produced by the prosecution amply show that the accused are responsible for the commission of the offence The presence of the eye-witnesses at the alleged time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted The incriminating circumstances that have been deposed to at the trial by the witnesses-lend guarantee to the truthfulness of the version deposed to by the witnesses. The medical evidence also lend necessary assurance to the conclusion that it were the appellants who perpertated the crime. 31. In view of the foregoing reasons the first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is unacceptable. 32. The next contention of the learned Counsel that the accused were not identified correctly by the prosecution witnesses is also not supported by evidence produced on record PW 3 Bihari Lal deposed that the deceased Partap Singh was accompanied by three other accused persons at the time of commission of the crime. He categorically denied the suggestion of the defence Counsel that the culprits were not identified by the eyewitnesses at the time of the incident. PW 4 Banarsi Dass deposed that he had seen Partap Singh deceased, who belonged to his village, alongwith accused persons on the date of occurrence. He categorically denied the suggestion of the defence Counsel that the culprits were not identified by the eyewitnesses at the time of the incident. PW 4 Banarsi Dass deposed that he had seen Partap Singh deceased, who belonged to his village, alongwith accused persons on the date of occurrence. He got suspicious as earlier on 2-10-1986 theft had taken place at the house of Pt Braham Dass of the village in which Partap Singh deceased and the accused persons were suspected. He corroborated PW ? Bihari Lal on the factum of having informed him to imform the police of all these persons moving in the area. 33. PW 5 Kartaro Devi deposed that as soon as the electricity light was restored the accused persons bad entered their house. She further deposed that the present accused persons were involved in the incident. It is an admitted fact that no identification parade was conducted by the prosecution, but from the statements of various witnesses produced by the prosecution, the identities of the accused persons were correctly established by the prosecution. PW 10 Jaswant Singh has also identified accused Ram Parkash who bad visited his shop alongwith Partap Singh deceased. 34. The third contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is an inordinate delay in sending the F. I. R to the Ilaqa Magistrate is also unacceptable F. I. R. Ex PF was recorded on 22-10-1986 at about 9 5 p. m. and the same was sent to the Uaqa Magistrate on 23-10-1986 and the same was received on the same day at about 4 p m. by the Ilaqa Magistrate. This challenge, indeed, like the argument of interpolation and belated despatch of the inquest report, was developed for the purpose of showing that the investigation was not just, fair and forthright and, therefore, the prosecution case must be looked at with great suspicion No doubt, the report reached the Magistrate at about 4 p. m , section 157 requires such report to be sent forthwith by the police officer concerned to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence. This is really designed to keep the Magistrate informed of the investigation of such cognizable offence so as to be able to control the investigation and if necessary, to give appropriate direction under section 159 of the Code of Criminal Procedure But when we find in this case that the F. I. R. was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on the basis of that F. I R. and there is no infirmity brought to our notice, then however improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned, it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that \ the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable. It is also not the appellants* case that they have been prejudiced by this delay. The prosecution has explained the reason occurred in sending the F I R. late to the Ilaqa Magistrate, The testimony of Jagdish Chand Head-constable PW 30 who was working as M. H. C. on 22-10-1986 at Police Station Sujanpur shows that he was directed by A. S. I. Bhag Siagh PW 29 to despatch the F I. R. through special messenger in the morning and at the time of morning roll call at 8 a. m. on 23-10-1986 only one constable was available with him at the police station and that constable was on guard duty. At about 8.05 a. m. one more constable Shiv Ram had returned to the police station but he was sent to the spot at Chauri along-with inquest forms by him. His testimony further shows that on 22-10-1986 as per roznameba entry only one constable was on duty with him and he was on the guard duty to ammunition room. 35. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution has miserably failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused. PW 3 Bihari Lal categorically deposed that after the commission of the offence the accused escaped from the spot of occurrence and while they were running towards Kot village the villagers who had gathered on the spot had started pelting stones on them. The statement of the prosecution is further supported by the medical evidence. Eye witnesses have also deposed that the accused have received certain minor injuries during the grappling at the time of the incident. The statement of the prosecution is further supported by the medical evidence. Eye witnesses have also deposed that the accused have received certain minor injuries during the grappling at the time of the incident. We are of the view that the question as to the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused may not arise in each and every case. In other words, it is not invariably the rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries sustained by the accused. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is undoubtedly on the prosecution. The accused is not bound to say anything in defence. The prosecution is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the court in proof of the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, the question of obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. In the present case, when the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and in what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. All the eye-witnesses have stated that the appellants had committed the offence and the prosecution witnesses have been believed by the trial court. This contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is also without force. 36. The last contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is to the effect that the investigation was conducted by PW 28 Jagdish Chand Sharma who at the relevant time was S B. O Hamirpur and had got no jurisdiction to investigate the case whereas the occurrence had taken place within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sujanpur. It has been proved on record that Jagdish Chand , Sharma S. H O Police Station Hamirpur was deputed by CW 31 T. S. Sain, Deputy Superintendent of Police for the purpose of Nakabandi of the accused persons who had fled away from the scene of occurrence after the commission of the offence. Shri T. S. Sain CW 31 deposed that at the relevant time he was Deputy Superintendent of Police posted at Hamirpur. Shri T. S. Sain CW 31 deposed that at the relevant time he was Deputy Superintendent of Police posted at Hamirpur. On 22-10-1986 he received information from Police Station Sujanpur on telephone regarding murder and robbery in the present case at village Chauri. He took police force from the police line and Police Station Hamirpur and went to the spot. He further deposed that he informed Police Station Jawalamukhi, Nadaun and Sarkaghat for doing Nakabandi in order to apprehend the culprits. He deposed that on 23-10-1985 Jagdish Chand Sharma PW 28 along with other police force had arrested all the accused persons from near village Kot. He deposed that S. H. O. Sujanpur Police Station was not in station and only A. S. I. Bhag Singh PW 29 was at the Police Station. He directed PW 28 Jagdish Chand, S. H. O. Hamirpur to investigate the case The direction imparted to S. H. O. Hamirpur to investigate the case was oral. In cross examination he deposed that the investigation was partly conducted by PW 28 and partly by PW 29. We find from the record that PW 28 has only arrested the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements and the statements of recovery witnesses. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, investigation consists generally of the following tests; (1) Proceeding to the spot; (2) To ascertain all the facts and circumstances of the case; (3) To discover and arrest of the suspected offender; (4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of offence which may consist of: (a) the examination of the various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing, if necessary ; (b) the search of places or seizure of things considered necessary for investigation and to be produced at the trial ; and (5) Formation of opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before the Magistrate for trial and if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by filing of a charge sheet under section 176. 37. Chapter V of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the arrest of the persons. 37. Chapter V of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the arrest of the persons. Section 41 lays down that: "(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person— (a) who has been concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned ; (d) in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such thing. (i) for whose arrest any requisition, whether written or oral, has been received from another police officer, provided that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested and the offence or other cause for which the arrest ii to be made and it appears therefrom that the person might lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who issued the requisition." Section 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that: "(1) Whenever a person is arrested by a police officer under a warrant which does not provide for the taking of bail, or under a warrant which provides for the taking of bail but the person arrested cannot furnish bail, and whenever a person is arrested without warrant, or by a private person under a warrant, and cannot legally be admitted to bail, or is unable to furnish bail, and the officer making the arrest or, when the arrest is made by a private person, the police officer to whom he makes over the person arrested, may search such person, and place in safe custody all articles, other than necessary wearing apparel, found upon him and where any article is seized from the arrested person, a receipt showing the articles taken in possession by the police officer shall be given to such person. (2)x * * Section 36 of the Code reads as under “Police Officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station." This section clearly meets the contention of the learned Counsel for the aSans It is not in dispute that PW 28 was a police officer superior in rant: to the officer incharge of Police Station at Sujanpur. PW 28 Jagdish Chand Sharma, S. H. O. Police Station Hamirpur was completely justified in exercising the powers which could have been exercised by ASIBhas Singh P W29, Police Station Sujanpur, and thus he had acted within his jurisdiction while partly investigating the case m question on. The oral direction of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In our opinion lection 36 protects Jagdiih Chand Sharma PW 29 in his undertaking the part investigation of the case in question. 38 Section 156 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure again protects I PW 28Jagdish Chand Sharma. Section 156 (2) reads as under "No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any staae be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate." 39 This section is again complete reply to Shri J. K, Vermas challenge to territorial jurisdiction of PW 28. 40. 40. The legislature has used wider word Police Officer meaning thereby that immunity is sought to be given to the investigating proceeding initiated by any police officer, which in its turn would include even an Officer incharge of the Police Station, and this immunity which states that such investigation shall not be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investieate The net result, therefore, is that even assuming that a police officer incharge of a Police Station seeks to investigate into an offence which is beyond his territorial jurisdiction or alternatively, an officer other than the Officer in charge of the Police Station seeks to investigate into the offence which otherwise falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Police station, in either case, section 156 (2) immunises this investigation against any possible attack on the ground of absence of power with the concerned investigating officer. If the legislature in its wisdom has insulated inquiries and trials before the Criminal Courts against the attacks on the round of absence of territorial jurisdiction, save and except in a even contingency where failure of justice and material prejudice are demonstrated, it would be too much to hold that at prior stage of investigation a police officer who is investigating into the offence which does not fall within his territorial jurisdiction, would be required to be totally prohibited from proceeding with investigation on the ground that some of the offences into which he it investigating fall outside the ambit of his local jurisdiction. 41 Thus section 36 and section 156 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure meets with Shri Vermas challenge that PW 28 Jagdish Chand Sharma has acted without jurisdiction. 42. We have scrutinised the whole evidence produced by the prosecution carefully and have also gone through the judgment of the trial court and we are of the confirmed opinion that the totality of the material placed on record unerringly establishes that all the accused are real culprits and there is over-whelming evidence on record pointing towards the guilt of the appellants. We are in agreement with the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and are not inclined to interfere with the findings given by the trial court The trial court has appreciated the weight of evidence in the correct perspective and we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order of the trial court. 43. As is inevitable in a case of the present kind, the ocular account is the core of the prosecution case. The eye-witnesses have given an account thereof which is remarkable in its consistency. 44. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentences as recorded by the trial court are confirmed and the appeal of the accused is dismissed as devoid of any merit. Appeal dismissed.