A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants assail the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, convicting appellants Lambodar Natha alias Lembu and Ghanashyam Nath for the offence punishable under section 302, I. P. C. and (for short the I. P. C.) and appellant Duryodhan for the offence punishable under section 307 I. P. C. and respectively sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to undergo R. I. for two years. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is, the villagers of Paranga and Bhubanpur used to watch their respective adjoining forest area against poaching. It seems there existed mistrust and smouldering bitterness between the two villages for one suspecting the other for removal of timber etc. from their respective forest areas. The prosecution case proceeds, the about 6 to 7 days prior to the date of occurrence the villagers of Paranga detained a man of Bhubanpur for felling trees, but however, the matter was compromised and the fellow was released. On 6. 6. 1985 i. e. the date of occurrence, it was alleged that one Kathi Karna and Kandia Mahalik of village Paranga while watching their forest area, were apprehended. by the villagers of Bhubanpur and taken to that village where they were detained. Accused Mangulu (since acquitted) and another sent intimation to P. W. 2 to come to village Bhubanpur for settlement. Thereafter, a meeting took place in the danda of village Bhubanpur where P. Ws. 1 to 4, deceased Biswanath and Antaryami and some other members of village Paranga and people of Bhubanpur carried on a deliberation about the allegation of theft of timber by the two detenu. Both Kathi Karna and Kandia Mahalik were also brought to the meeting place. Since the allegation against the two could, not be substantiated, both of them were let off. This decision was, however, not acceptable to the young people including the appellants. After the meeting when P. Ws. and the deceased and others were coming back, the appellants and some of the accused persons gave out that the villagers of Paranga should be killed. At this appellant Lambodar gave an axe blow on the backside head of Antaryami while the latter was trying to open the cycle lock and he fell down. After the meeting when P. Ws. and the deceased and others were coming back, the appellants and some of the accused persons gave out that the villagers of Paranga should be killed. At this appellant Lambodar gave an axe blow on the backside head of Antaryami while the latter was trying to open the cycle lock and he fell down. Thereafter appellant Ghana gave a Tabla blow on the back side neck of Biswanath as a result of which he fell down and died at the spot. P. W. 3, was assaulted by appellant Duryodhan by an axe which caused a bleeding injury on his right scapula. Thereafter the P. Ws. came away leaving the injured Antarymi and the dead body of Biswanath lying at the spot. ( 3 ) ON receiving information, the police reached the spot at 6. 00 P. M. whereafter P. W. 1 lodged the First Information Report. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. ( 4 ) THE defence case was that P. Ws. 1 to 4 along with 100 persons of Paranga being armed with weapons marched in a body inside the village Bhubanpur with an object to commit murder. As they attempted to assault the villagers of Bhubanpur, the villagers resisted the attack in self defence. A melee ensued as a result of which some people of Paranga were injured. Since it was dusk time, it was not possible to say who assaulted whom and how. ( 5 ) MR. Mishra learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge was wholly erroneous in view of the wrong appreciation of the evidence on record. The learned counsel further submitted that the fact that the real F. I. R. was suppressed and the material witnesses were not examined and that the witnesses for the prosecution were all interested witnesses should have weighed in the mind of the learned Sessions Judge to appreciate the case of the defence. Mr. Mishra, therefore, claimed that the findings and the resultant conviction of the appellants are liable to be set aside. Mr. G. K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, controverting most of the contentions of Mr. Mishra submitted that nothing has been brought out on record to disbelieve the prosecution case. According to Mr. Mr. Mishra, therefore, claimed that the findings and the resultant conviction of the appellants are liable to be set aside. Mr. G. K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, controverting most of the contentions of Mr. Mishra submitted that nothing has been brought out on record to disbelieve the prosecution case. According to Mr. Mohanty, the prosecution witnesses have been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the order of conviction should not be interfered with. The rival contention need examination. ( 6 ) THAT both Biswanath and Antaryami died a homicidal death was not assailed before us. Ext. 23 is the post-mortem examination report (marked on admission) shows that Biswanath sustained an injury on the neck of the size 6 x 4 x 4 extending over the middle of the neck (back side) towards the right site and downward. The muscles at the site of the injury were severed. There was dislocation of cervical vertebra and the spinal cord at the site of the injury was found severed. ( 7 ) THE deceased Antaryami Mahakud sustained an incised wound 8 cm x 1/2 cm x 4 cm over the posterior part of the head extending over the temporal region to the right occipital region and the second incised wound of the size 8 cm x /1/2 cm x 3 cm on the bead along with the same line of injury as mentioned above. The injuries mentioned above could not have been possible either by self-infliction or accident. Therefore, the death of the two was homicidal in nature. The only point for consideration is whether the appellants perpetrated the act as alleged by the prosecution. ( 8 ) THE prosecution has relied on the evidence of eye witnesses (p. Ws. 1 to 4 ). We have carefully gone through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence of four eye witnesses. The presence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 and the deceased Antaryami and Biswanath has been admitted by the defence. There can be no doubt about their presence at the place of occurrence. 1 to 4 ). We have carefully gone through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence of four eye witnesses. The presence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 and the deceased Antaryami and Biswanath has been admitted by the defence. There can be no doubt about their presence at the place of occurrence. P. W. 1 stated, whose evidence has been duly corroborated by the other three P. W s. that about 6 to 7 days prior to the date of occurrence, the villagers of Paranga had caught hold of the man of the appellants village for allegedly committing theft of trees from Kumbharmalia forest. This matter was subsequently compromised. The P. W s. further stated that on the date of occurrence, Kathia Kama (P. W. 5) and Kandia Muhalik (not examined) were caught by the villagers of Bhubanpur for suspected theft of timber from the forest area watched by the villagers of Bhubanpur where they were detained. The letter (Ext. 3) duly proved to have been written by accused Mangulu (since acquitted) was addressed to P. W. 2 to come and settle the matter at village Bhubanpur. Ids for this and also on account of the reason that the two villagers of Paranga were detained, the P. Ws. , the two deceased and some others of village Paranga went to village Bhubanpur, where, a meeting took place in the village Danda. The two detenu were brought to the place of meeting. Nothing could be proved against them that they had committed theft of any wood from the jungle. They were released. But this decision did not satisfy the younger people who shouted to kill the villagers of Paranga. The P. Ws. further stated that while they were coming back and deceased Antaryami was about to open the lock of his cycle, he was assaulted by appellant Lambodar by an axe on the backside of his head who fell down. Duryodhan gave a Tabala blow on the back side neck of the deceased Biswanath who also fell down. P. W. 4 when rushed to rescue Antaryami, appellant Duryodhan dealt a blow on the right side scapula causing a bleeding injury. Thereafter the prosecution party came away leaving the injured Antaryami and the dead body of Biswanath at the spot. The police reached the place at Bhubanpur village at 6. P. W. 4 when rushed to rescue Antaryami, appellant Duryodhan dealt a blow on the right side scapula causing a bleeding injury. Thereafter the prosecution party came away leaving the injured Antaryami and the dead body of Biswanath at the spot. The police reached the place at Bhubanpur village at 6. 00 P. M. whom P. W. 1 gave an oral report which was reduced to writing, P. W. 1 proved the F. I. R. Ex. 1, thereafter Antaryami was sent by the police to the hospital where he subsequently died. The evidence of P. W. 1 finds ample corroboration in his statement in the F. I. R. P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 in equivocation have corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 in all material particulars. Though a lot of cross-examination has been done, nothing has been elicited adversely to of fact the veracity of these witnesses about the prosecution case. We have no hesitation in our mind to accept the prosecution version that it was the appellants, in the manner, described above, who carried out the assault. ( 9 ) MR. Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the prosecution did not come forward with a case as to why appellants would assault in the manner described by the witnesses for the prosecution. To this, we would like to point out that the learned Sessions Judge in para-12 of the judgment has observed, that too rightly, that the decision releasing Kathi Karma and Kandia Mahalik did not satisfy the young folk of the village and therefore, they started assaulting the prosecution party. This part of the prosecution story finds corroboration from the contents of the F. I. R. itself. ( 10 ) THE defence case that there was a melee in the manner suggested to the P. Ws. cannot be accepted, since in our view it is found to be an intricate web of deceit 10 falsify the prosecution case. We have our reasons as follows: (i) The prosecution came forward with a clear case which we have already held 10 be true that P. Ws. 1 to 4 and the two deceased persons along with some others did in fact go to village Bhubanpur. They did not carry any weapon with them which is clear from the evidence on record. 1 to 4 and the two deceased persons along with some others did in fact go to village Bhubanpur. They did not carry any weapon with them which is clear from the evidence on record. Not only that, there has been no suggestion from the side of the defence that any of the P. Ws. or even Biswanath and Antaryami were armed with any deadly weapons. No doubt, they had gone only after receiving information that two of their villagers were detained by the villagers of Bhubanpur and that admitted; P. W. 2 was called upon under Ext. 3 the letter to come 10 village Bhubanpur to settle the matter. Therefore, we believe that the prosecution party were not armed with any weapon. The suggestion of the defence that they marched in 100 nos. being armed with deadly weapons cannot be reasonably believed to be true. This part of the defence case is liable to be rejected. (ii) We have held that the defence case that about 100 peoples of village Paranga armed with deadly weapon marched inside the village Bhubanpur is not borne out by any material on record. In the written statement under section 313, Cr. P. C. the defence did not come forward with a specific suggestion that anyone of P. Ws. 1 to 4 or even Antaryami and Biswanath were armed with any deadly weapons. We are unable to persuade ourselves to conceive a situation if so many persons in a body armed with deadly weapon marched inside the village Bhubanpur, what prevented them from assaulting a single villager or damaging the, the property of anyone of them. Nothing has been suggested to the P. Ws. that in fact these people including P. Ws. or the deceased committed any sort of overt act which necessitated a resistence from the side of the appellants who were armed and such resistence even went to the extent of stiffing the life of two defenseless persons. It is found from Ext. 20 the injury report of Surendra Kumar Nath, a villager of Bhubanpur that he was examined by the doctor on 7. 6. 1985 at 5. 30 P. M. and the requisition of the investigating Officer, Ext. 26/1 shows that the said Surendra Kumar Nath, complained to have been assaulted and received injuries. The report of the doctor, Ext. 20 shows that he did not find any external injury. 6. 1985 at 5. 30 P. M. and the requisition of the investigating Officer, Ext. 26/1 shows that the said Surendra Kumar Nath, complained to have been assaulted and received injuries. The report of the doctor, Ext. 20 shows that he did not find any external injury. We cannot comprehend a situation that if so many persons of village Paranga being armed with deadly weapons, attempted to assault the villagers of Bhubanpur, not a single person from village of Bhubanpur was injured. (iii) It is surprising to note that no report was lodged by any of the villagers of Bhubanpur in respect of the occurrence as stated by the defence. We have no hesitation to hold that since none of, the villagers or none of the appellants were injured in the transaction, they did not lodge any report with the police and, therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mishra that the prosecution has not come forward with a true case. (vi) Mr. Mishra was very much critical about the F. I. R. (Ext. 1) lodged by P. W. 1 it is submitted that the real F. I. R. lodged by the people of Bhubanpur was suppressed and the F. I. R. proved in the case is the outcome of manipulation and fabrication at the instance of the villagers of Paranga in connivance with the Investigating Officer. Mr. Mishra however wanted to make a capital out of the statement of the Investigating Officer who admitted to have received an F. I. R. lodged by accused Mangulu Natha. It was suggested to the Investigating Officer that he did not retain a copy of the F. I. R. in the case diary of the present case and this was for the sole purpose of suppressing the real occurrence. We find from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P. W. 10) that he admitted to have received the F. I. R. but explained the same by saying that in the said report accused Managulu attributed an act of theft of wood from the jungle by Kathi Kama and Kandia Mahalik and that the F. I. R. was registered as a separate case. We have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating Officer in this regard. Therefore, the claim that the villagers of Bhubanpur in fact lodged a report concerning the occurrence in question cannot be believed. We have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating Officer in this regard. Therefore, the claim that the villagers of Bhubanpur in fact lodged a report concerning the occurrence in question cannot be believed. (v) So far as the allegation of falsity of the F. I. R. by the prosecution is concerned, we have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 1 and the Investigating Officer that the F. I. R. was lodged at the place of occurrence at Bhubanpur by P. W. 1 in between 6. 00 to 6. 30 P. M. This has been duly corroborated by the evidence ofp. W. 10. The time as 6. 30 P. M. also finds place in the F. I. R. Ext. 1. This time also has been reflected in the case diary as 6. 30 P. M. on the same day. Nothing has been brought out on record as to why the Investigating Officer should support the cause of the villagers of Paranga and would falsely implicate the appellants in the case. Having gone through the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 10 and the corresponding entries in the police case diary, we find that there was no manipulation by P. W. 1 or in that matter by the Investigating Officer (P. W. 10) in bringing out the F. I. R. Ext. 1. (vi) The defence put forth a case of poor visibility at the time of occurrence. We have no doubt in our mind that the occurrence took place when there was sufficient light, what startles us in this regard is if nothing could be seen, then how it was that only the villagers of Paranga were injured and that the fatal blows on the two deceased could fall only on the vital part of their body. Mr. Mishra, however, on this point relied on a number of decisions, such as Balaka Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, Sevi and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. , Bandi Mallaiah v. State of A. P. . We have no quarrel over the proposition of law settled by the apex Court but on facts we have already held that the F. I. R Ext. I was not the result of any manipulation or fabrication to suit the prosecution case and therefore we reject the contention of Mr. , Bandi Mallaiah v. State of A. P. . We have no quarrel over the proposition of law settled by the apex Court but on facts we have already held that the F. I. R Ext. I was not the result of any manipulation or fabrication to suit the prosecution case and therefore we reject the contention of Mr. Mishra that the F. I. R was lodged on the following day only after the inquest was held. All these decisions cited are distinguishable on the facts of the case. ( 11 ) MR. Mishra, referring to Rule 143 (C) of the Police Manual submitted that the F. I. R could have been recorded on the basis of hearsay statement regarding commission of a cognizable offence. At the cost of repetition, we may say that no concrete information giving out the particulars as to how the concurrence took place and who were the persons killed and who were the assailants were not provided by the Grama Rakhi who reported the matter on the basis of which station diary entry, Ext. 31 was made. Therefore, in the absence of any such material, mere a report that the death has taken place would not have justified the action of the 1. 0. in drawing up an F. I. R. That the Grama Rakhi was unable to give any further information about the occurrence is found to have been noted in the station diary entry. This contention of Mr. Mishra is therefore not acceptable. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Rajasthan v. Kartar Singh where it has been held that no suspicion can be attributed in regard to an F. I. R. made by a person having information from another source. Accepting for the sake of argument, that there was delay in lodging the F. I. R. , yet we may profitably rely on the decision reported in Ram Jag and Ors. v. State of U. P. , which laid down that even long delay in filing the F. I. R. can be condoned if the person reporting has no motive. The apex Court in the case referred to went a little further in observing. v. State of U. P. , which laid down that even long delay in filing the F. I. R. can be condoned if the person reporting has no motive. The apex Court in the case referred to went a little further in observing. On the other hand, prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution In the present case, we have already believed the prosecution case that the report was lodged at the place of occurrence by P. W. 1 in between 6 to 6. 30 p. m. ( 12 ) WE find no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants who, with reference to the decision reported in Bahadur v. State of Orissa, persuaded us to hold that when the prosecution witnesses as in the present case were similarly positioned one could not claim a better position than the other, therefore the charge under section 149 and sections 302/149, I. P. C. should fail. It would be idle exercise to go into the point raised by Mr. Mishra for the simple reason that the learned Sessions Judge has non convincted the appellants with the aid of section 149, I. P. C. He has rightly held the appellants liable for their individual act and we do not find any reason to defer. However, going through the evidence on record so far as the conviction of accused Duryodhan under section 307, I. P. C. is concerned, we do not find any material that the said assailant had the intention to commit murder. But we find him guilty for the offence punishable under section 325,i. P. C. and reduce the sentence of two years R. I. to one year rigorous imprisonment. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we uphold the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and dismiss the appeal so far as the appellants Lambodar and Ghanashyam are concerned and alter the conviction of appellant Duryodhan as stated above. The criminal appeal is dismissed with the above modification. Order accordingly.