Judgment : A. R. Tiwari, J. (1) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 227/85, filed by the appellants Shanker Singh and Madrusingh who are also appellants along with four others in this appeal, preferred against the same judgment. (2) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 10-5-85 in Sessions Trial No. 23/85, rendered by Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore thereby convicting appellant Baliram under Ss. 147 and 302/149 and remaining appellants under Ss. 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life as also Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with a direction that these will run concurrently. Co-accused Bhagirath died during the trial. (3) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case at the trial was that the first wife of the deceased Peerasingh was abducted by Bhagirath (now dead) which had led to an incident of assault on Bhagirath by Peerasingh and his companions. Bhagirath sustained injuries in this and his one leg was amputated. On trial, Peerasingh, Ambaram and Haridas were held guilty of the offence punishable under S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. They suffered this sentence. After one year from the release of Peerasingh, Bhagirath and his relations planned to murder Peerasingh due to this old enmity. On 7-8-84, the date of incident, Peerasingh and his wife Ramkanya (P. W. 11), started on cycle from Hatod to reach their village Kalmer. Appellant Shankersingh crossed them and obstructed their way by his cycle, near Kankad. Peerasingh was assaulted by Kamal Singh by means of a sword on neck. He and his wife thus fell down. Appellants Mangilal, Madrusingh, and Deokaran, who were hiding till then, appeared armed with weapons. Peerasingh ran for his life towards the field of Bhagirath. The appellants chased him and put him on the ground in the field of Bhagirath and mounted murderous assault with their deadly weapons. Kamalsingh and Madrusingh were armed with swords; Mangilal and Shanker Singh were armed with axes and Deokaran was armed with Farsi. In the meantime, Baliram, armed with Lathi and Knife, joined other accused persons. Bhagirath exhorted them to chop off the head of the deceased. Ramkanya intervened, but she too was assaulted and sustained injuries on her hand and leg. Kamalsingh and Madrusingh were armed with swords; Mangilal and Shanker Singh were armed with axes and Deokaran was armed with Farsi. In the meantime, Baliram, armed with Lathi and Knife, joined other accused persons. Bhagirath exhorted them to chop off the head of the deceased. Ramkanya intervened, but she too was assaulted and sustained injuries on her hand and leg. Meanwhile one Matador came there with Gordhan (P. W.-2), Rameshwar, Sunder and Haridas (PW-4) as its occupants. Ramkanya cried far help resulting in stoppage of the vehicle on seeing the occupants alighting, the accused persons took to their heels. Peerasingh succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on his way to Police Station. Ramkanya (PW-1) lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P/1). The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Dr. Nishikant Kochar (FW-5) performed the postmortem on 8-8-84 and gave report (Ex. P/6). Peerasingh sustained as many as 14 incised wounds on various parts of his body. PW-1 Ramkanya was also examined. Injury report is Ex. P/7. Spot maps (Ex. P/2 and P/7) were prepared. Weapons were seized from the appellants pursuant to the disclosure made under S. 27 of the Evidence Act. Blood stained earth as also Sundry articles were seized from the spot. Bloodstained pant of the accused Kamalsingh was also seized. All these articles were duly sealed and forwarded to Chemical Examiner for examination. The report is Ex. P/28. After completion of investigation, Challan was filed against the present six appellants and Bhagirath. Charges under S. 148 (Baliram under S. 147) of the Indian Penal Code) and under S. 302 and in the alternative under S. 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and under S. 324 of the Indian Penal Code (on all except Baliram) were framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty. On trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as above. Hence, the aforesaid two appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 214/85 and 227/85) have been preferred. They were, however, acquitted of the offence punishable under S. 324 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that it was not established as to who, among the accused persons caused the injuries to PW-1. (4) WE have heard Shri Jaisingh, learned counsel for the appellants as also Shri A. S. Kutumbale, learned Government Advocate for the State and have also perused the record. (4) WE have heard Shri Jaisingh, learned counsel for the appellants as also Shri A. S. Kutumbale, learned Government Advocate for the State and have also perused the record. xc (5) SHRI Jaisingh has querulously questioned the correctness of the conviction and deftly directed his scathing attack by formulating twin submissions, pressed as serious infirmities as under : (a) First Information Report (Ex. P/1) is evidently anti-timed in this case and was actually registered only on 9-8-1984 i. e. after 2 days and it is for this reason, as urged, that the copy of the First Information Report could not be sent to the Court in compliance of S. 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure till 10-8-84. And it is for this reason that Baliram, though detained on 8-8-84, was not arrested till 9-8-84 in this crime. Hence, the case is rendered suspicious. (b) The witnesses, besides being partisan, had obvious animus to implicate the appellants due to pre-existing enmity generated by earlier case. Their statements are unnatural and full of contradictions and ought not to be believed without corroborations from independent source which is not available in this case. (6) SHRI Kutumbale on the other hand strenuously supported the judgment, impugned here, and urged that the First Information Report was promptly lodged and in any case delay in dispatch to the Court concerned cannot deliver dent on the genuineness of the case. He also submitted that PW-2 sustained injuries in the same incident and as such, her presence is indisputable. All witnesses are natural and reliable. He argued that no interference in the judgment is thus called for. (7) ELABORATING the contention further, the learned counsel for the appellants vigorously submitted that Ex. P/1 is demonstrably anti-timed as is clear by its delayed dispatch to the Court (para 36 of PW-11). He submitted that PW-11 says that he had sent this on 10-8-84. The explanation given by him with regard to delay, counsel submits, is incorrect in the face of statement in para 45 which shows that the staff was available. He thus urged that the entire case becomes rejectable. And that witnesses on their own showing have axe to grind. He thus prayed that all witnesses be shield as untrustworthy. He read to us the relevant portions of the statements of principal witnesses. He thus urged that the entire case becomes rejectable. And that witnesses on their own showing have axe to grind. He thus prayed that all witnesses be shield as untrustworthy. He read to us the relevant portions of the statements of principal witnesses. (8) THE counsel has placed reliance on the decisions reported in : kashmir Singh v. The State of M. P. AIR 1952 SC 159 : (1952 Cri LJ 839); Baldeo Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 464 : (1972 Cri LJ 262); Ramchandra v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 765 and Budhwa v. State of M. P. , AIR 1991 SC 4 : (1990 Cri LJ 2597). We have gone through these decisions and do find that they do not help the appellants in any manner in the facts and circumstances of the case. The principles of law are not in dispute. The real point is that they are the decisions on different facts and deal with different situations. At bottom, the fate of a criminal case turns on its own facts. In fact Ramchandras case (supra) is not even to the point as it deals with other law. (9) WE now proceed to examine these rival contentions in detail with reference to material on record as also the impugned judgment. (10) THE face of the case hinges on ocular version of PW-1 Ramkanya, PW-2 Gordhandas, PW-3 Ramsingh and PW-4 Haridas; medical evidence, disclosures and recoveries of weapons. PW-2 Gordhandas and PW-4 Haridas are brothers. PW-4 Haridas was convicted along with Peerasingh in earlier case (Para 7 of PW-2). PW-3 is an old acquaintance of Peera Singh. He instituted a Criminal Case against the appellant Shanker and Kamal in Hatod Court (Para 7 of PW-3). It is thus clear that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 are hostile to the appellants and as such their statements deserve to be analysed carefully and implicit faith should not be put on them as regards naming of the appellants by them. It may at once be noted here that even the trial Court did not treat these witnesses as eyewitnesses to the incident. In para 14 of the judgment, it is observed as under :- "goverdhandas and Haridas are the brothers. Haridas was also convicted with Peerasingh in the above stated Sessions Trial. Ramsingh (PW-3) is an old acqurtance of Peerasingh. It may at once be noted here that even the trial Court did not treat these witnesses as eyewitnesses to the incident. In para 14 of the judgment, it is observed as under :- "goverdhandas and Haridas are the brothers. Haridas was also convicted with Peerasingh in the above stated Sessions Trial. Ramsingh (PW-3) is an old acqurtance of Peerasingh. All these three witnesses saw six assailants running from the scene of occurrence. But in their anxiety to make themselves eye-witnesses of the whole incident they have named these accused persons. This part of their statement is not reliable. " It is also held in para 13 as under :-"it is evident that these witnesses could not identify the assailants. " (11) THE aforesaid three witnesses have, thus, been relied upon by the Trial Court only for the limited purpose i. e. the place of incident, the time of the incident, their presence on the spot soon after the incident and their having seen six persons armed with different weapons running from the place, the presence of PW-1 and injuries as such. The trial Court has properly sifted the grain from the chaff and meticulously rejected the chaff. No fault can be found with this approach and appreciation. They are thus not the witnesses to the main incident. (12) THE case thus rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eye-witness PW-1 Ramkanya. The learned counsel has made trenchant criticism against her statement on the basis of certain contradictions and has urged that she be held to be untrustworthy. It is also submitted that she is the widow of the deceased and is inimically disposed to the appellants. Before analysing her statement, it is apt to notice the position of law with regard to relationship as also testimony of single eyewitness. In Anwaruddin v. Shakoor, AIR 1990 SC 1242 , it is laid down as under :- "the direct testimony of witnesses, whose evidence is otherwise consistent, should not ordinarily be rejected on the ground that they are partisan witnesses unless the surrounding circumstances discredit their version. Ordinarily close relatives of the deceased would not allow the real culprits to escape. The possibility of their implicating others with the real offenders must, however, be kept in mind. The acquittal recorded the High Court by brushing aside direct testimony without marshalling the evidence was improper. Ordinarily close relatives of the deceased would not allow the real culprits to escape. The possibility of their implicating others with the real offenders must, however, be kept in mind. The acquittal recorded the High Court by brushing aside direct testimony without marshalling the evidence was improper. " In State of M. P. v. Badalia, 1974 JLJ SN 13, it is held as under :-"it is permissible to base conviction on the testimony of a single witness and this Court finds his evidence reliable. " (13) BEARING this principle of law in mind, we shall proceed to examine the testimony of PW-1 Ramkanyabai. She deposes that she accompanies her husband on a cycle when on way to village, appellant Shankar Singh intercepted and did not allow them to proceed. Shankar Singh dealt an axe-blow. Kamal assaulted by sword. Deceased tried to escape, yet he was chased. Madru attacked by a sword. Mangilal assaulted by an axe. Deokaran dealt Farsi-blow Baliram assaulted by lathi and knife on the back of the deceased. Baliram assaulted her by knife on leg and hand. She had earlier thrown her child on the road in order to be able to follow her husband to save him. Bhagirath had exhorted that the head of the deceased be chopped off. Matador of one Hari (PW-4) came there. Goverdhandas (PW-2) Haridas (PW-4), Sunder (not examined) and Rameshwar (not examined) came out of this vehicle and then the accused persons escaped. Ramsingh (PW-3) was positioned some 2-3 furlongs away and did not come near due to fear. She lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P/1). The deceased died on way to Hatod. The infant was later picked up by Rameshwar. She was examined under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 20-9-1984. She further deposed in her cross-examination that the appellant Shankar Singh and Kamalsingh attacked in the way and the remaining assault by the appellants took place in the field of Bhagirath. She emphatically denied the suggestion that she signed the report (Ex. P/1) after two days or that the real makers of this report were Haridas and Ambaram. She spoke about the motive furnished by earlier incident. Minor contradictions in the First Information Report, Ex. D/1 (statement under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) Ex. She emphatically denied the suggestion that she signed the report (Ex. P/1) after two days or that the real makers of this report were Haridas and Ambaram. She spoke about the motive furnished by earlier incident. Minor contradictions in the First Information Report, Ex. D/1 (statement under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) Ex. D/2 (statement under S. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and the statement in the Court (recorded on 15-3-1985), as noticed by the Trial Court, do not put dent on the prosecution version as a whole and are natural ones. Nothing is elicited in cross-examination to show that she was not present on the spot of falsely implicated all the appellants. She too was sent for medical examination vide Requisition dated 7-8-1984 (Ex. P. 7-A) and was examined by the doctor (PW-5) on 8-8-84 at 7-30 p. m. The injury report (Ex. P/7) showed one incised wound and in all four abrasions on her person. PW5 further testified that the duration of these injuries was between 24 and 48 hours. He further stated that these could not be self-inflicted (Para 5). On careful and cautious scrutiny of her statement and the attendant circumstances in their totality, we find the statement of PW-1, the sole eye-witness, wholly reliable, natural, and dependable. The criticism of her late medical examination is capable of being explained by the fact that her husband had died, being the victim of brutal attack, and some time is bound to be taken in arranging funeral etc. Postmortem was performed at 8-00 a. m. on 8-8-84. However, we are further assured because the undernoted facts lend useful corroboration though not essential in point of law to the testimony of PW-1. a) She is an injured person. Hence, her presence at the time of incident is amply established and no doubt exists. b) PW-2, PW-3 and RW-4 further prove the presence of PW 1 as also the place and time of incident. This limited portion is corroborated by PW-1. (c) Blood was found on the spot as alleged. (d) Weapons, as particularised, are recovered Ex. P/15, P/16, P/17, P/21 and P/24) pursuant to information furnished (Ex. P/12) P/13, P/14, P/20 and P/23, marked in the case as Article A, B, C, D and E and proved by PW-8 Sunderlal. Ex. This limited portion is corroborated by PW-1. (c) Blood was found on the spot as alleged. (d) Weapons, as particularised, are recovered Ex. P/15, P/16, P/17, P/21 and P/24) pursuant to information furnished (Ex. P/12) P/13, P/14, P/20 and P/23, marked in the case as Article A, B, C, D and E and proved by PW-8 Sunderlal. Ex. P/28 is the report from Chemical Examiner which confirmed the presence of blood on certain articles. (e) Pent (Article F) was seized (Ex. P/22) from the appellant Kamalsingh on which presence of blood was confirmed by Ex. P/28. (f) Medical Examination corroborates the version of attack by weapons like sword, axe and Farsi seized in the case as 14 incised wounds were found on the person of the deceased. (14) IT may be mentioned that the appellants Shankar Singh and Madrusingh took the belated plea of "alibi" and in support of this examined two defence witnesses DW-1 Motilal and DW-2 Gangaram. In our opinion, this plea has been rightly rejected and these witnesses have been disbelieved on proper appreciation of their statements. We have also read their statements and hold that they do not inspire confidence. (15) THERE is no shadow of doubt that six accused persons (five appellants here and the deceased Bhagirath) formed an unlawful assembly of which the common object designedly was to kill the deceased (Peerasingh) and in prosecution of this common object, they mounted brutal attack and indulged in overt acts as alleged. They all were animated by common object. No argument about formation of unlawful assembly in opposition was advanced before us. (16) PW-1 Ramkanya is thus found to be the witness of truth. The incident is of 4-30 p.m. Her version fundamentally and substantially remains unshaken and creditworthy. Once her presence on the spot is found to be amply proved, it is too much to think that she would spare the real culprits when there was sufficient light to identify the assailants. We are convinced that five appellants, on exhortation of the deceased Bhagirath, caused 14 incised wounds found on the person of the victim Peerasingh. Once her presence on the spot is found to be amply proved, it is too much to think that she would spare the real culprits when there was sufficient light to identify the assailants. We are convinced that five appellants, on exhortation of the deceased Bhagirath, caused 14 incised wounds found on the person of the victim Peerasingh. (17) IN this view of the matter, repelling the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, we hold that PW 1 Ramkanya is wholly reliable so far as the complicity of the present five appellants namely, Madrusingh, Shanker Singh, Kamal Singh, Mangilal, Deokaran (and Bhagirath who died during the trial), in commission of the alleged crime, is concerned. As regards Baliram, he is said to be armed with a Lathi. The allegation about knife is not dependable because Ex. P/1 does not say that he was so armed or that he caused any injury by knife. This alleged weapon knife is not shown to have any presence of blood either. He is clearly shown to be armed only with lathi (Ex. P/1). He was not arrested on 8-8-1984, though available (para 5 of PW 11 Rajendra Singh Tomar). The medical report does not show any injury by lathi as there are 14 injuries, all incised wounds. In view of lack of corroboration by medical evidence as also aforesaid other circumstances, we hold that the participation of the appellant Baliram and his sharing the common object is doubtful. As such, we sift the grain from chaff and are obliged to give benefit of doubt to the appellant Baliram. As regards the submission of late registration and anti-timing of the First Information, we notice that PW 1 and PW 11 emphatically deny the suggestion. In any case, latches or negligence or indolence on the part of the police in dispatch of the First Information Report in terms of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot put cloud of suspicion on the story as unfolded and told. The credibility is to be judged from the evidence adduced in the Court. After all Ex. P/11 is not the substantive piece of evidence. The evidence of PW 1 is found to be consistent throughout. Hence, this submission, on scrutiny, is found to be utterly untenable. We thus reject the twin contentions listed in paras 5 and 7 above. The credibility is to be judged from the evidence adduced in the Court. After all Ex. P/11 is not the substantive piece of evidence. The evidence of PW 1 is found to be consistent throughout. Hence, this submission, on scrutiny, is found to be utterly untenable. We thus reject the twin contentions listed in paras 5 and 7 above. Findings of the Court below are well supported from evidence on record and are valid and unimpeachable as regards five appellants. PW 1 and PW 11 are firm in their statements that the First Information Report was recorded on 7-8-1984 itself. PW 11 has explained the delay in the dispatch of copy of the First Information Report to the Court concerned in terms of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even when this explanation is ignored for a while, the investigation as a whole, cannot be dubbed as tainted. The Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Gokaran, 1984 (Supple) SCC 482 : (1985 Cri LJ 511) has pointed out as under :- "as regards the last circumstance, it is true that the special report was received by the District Magistrate on March 29, but it is not as if every delay in sending such special report to the District Magistrate under Sec. 157, Cr. P. C. necessarily leads to the inference that the F. I. R. has not been lodged at the time stated or has been ante-timed or ante dated or that the investigation is not fair and forthright. . . . . As has been pointed out by this Court in Pala Singh v. State of Punjab the relevant provision contained in Sec. 157, Cr. P. C. is really designed to keep the Magistrate informed of the investigation of a cognizable offence so as to be able to control the investigation and if necessary to give appropriate direction under Sec. 159, Cr. P. C. , but if in a case it is found that the FIR was recorded without delay and the investigation started on that FIR then however improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned that cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution in supportable. P. C. , but if in a case it is found that the FIR was recorded without delay and the investigation started on that FIR then however improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned that cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution in supportable. In the instant case the material on record clearly shows that steps in investigation by way of drawing inquest report and other Panchnamas had been taken in the early morning of March, 28 and these could only follow the handing over of FIR Ex. Ka-1 by Ram Narain Singh to the Station Officer at about 2. 15 a. m. In view of these facts the delayed receipt of the special report by the District Magistrate on March, 29 would not enable the Court to dub the investigation as tainted one nor could Ex. Ka-be regarded as ante-timed or ante-dated. For the same reasons the delay in sending the necessary papers to the Medical Officer which were received by him on March, 29 will be of no significance. " Consequently, we hold that the case against other five appellants stands fully proved beyond reasonable doubt and, in agreement with the findings of the trial Court. We sustain their conviction as also the sentence awarded to them. (18) WE are thus unable to persuade ourselves to disagree with the findings of the trial Court so far as the aforesaid five appellants are concerned and do confirm the same. As far as the appellant Baliram is concerned, he is entitled to get benefit of doubt yielded mainly by the lack of corroboration from medical evidence. (19) IN the result, we accept the appeal only as regards the appellant Baliram set aside his conviction as recorded under Sections 147 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of two years Rigorous Imprisonment and imprisonment for life awarded to him thereunder and acquit him of all the charges. He is on bail. His bail-bonds are discharged. We dismiss this appeal as regards the remaining five appellants, namely, Madru Singh, Shanker Singh, Kamal Singh, Mangilal and Deokaran and confirm the convictions as recorded under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code as also the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for life as awarded to them by the trial Court. They are on bail. They are on bail. They shall now surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the remaining part of their sentences. The Court concerned shall take suitable steps to take them in custody and commit them to jail. (20) THE appeal is thus partly allowed. (21) A copy of this judgment is directed to be placed on the file of Criminal Appeal No. 227/85. Appeal partly allowed.