Judgment NAGENDRA RAI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a judgment of conviction dated 5-5-1989, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Barh, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 619/88, by which the appellant Sheo Narain Gope has been convicted under Sections 302, 380 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, two years and one year, respectively. He has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The other three appellants, namely, Ramashray Gope, Binod Gope and Anuj Gope have been convicted under Sections 302/149 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison ment for life and two years, respectively. Appellant Binod Kumar Gope has been further convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under each count. Appellants Ramashray Gope and Anuj Gope have been further convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the aforesaid four appellants have been convicted under Section 452, I.P.C. but no separate sentence has been awarded to any of them. All the sentences awarded against the appellants have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Appellants Sheo Narain Gope and Ramashray Gope are own brothers and, similarly, Binod Gope and Anuj Gope are own brothers. 3. The occurrence took place in the night between 21st and 22nd of February, 1988, at village Gawasa Shekhpura Beldari Tola, P. S. Pandara in the district of Patna. The informant Bishundeo Chauhan (P.W. 11) was sleeping in his Khalihan which is near his house in a Khatia Palani and his brother Chanirak (deceased) was sleeping in the southern side of the same Khalihan in another Palani. At about 12 in the mid night 10-12 persons came near the house of the informent, out of them five persons went towards the Khalihan where Chanirak Chauhan was sleeping and brought Chanirak near the place where the informant was sleeping. There was a scuffle in between Chanirak and the accused persons, as a result of which the informant woke up and noticed that Sheo Narain Gope and Binod Gope both were armed with guns, Ramashray Gope, Anuj Gope and acquitted accused Haran Gope were armed with lathis. The informant raised hulla that his brother was being killed. There was a scuffle in between Chanirak and the accused persons, as a result of which the informant woke up and noticed that Sheo Narain Gope and Binod Gope both were armed with guns, Ramashray Gope, Anuj Gope and acquitted accused Haran Gope were armed with lathis. The informant raised hulla that his brother was being killed. In the meantime, appellant Sheo Narain Gope fired his gun at his brother Chanirak Chauhan as a result of which he fell down. On hearing the sound of gun-fire the informants brothers wife Gulabi Devi (P.W. 2) opened the door of the house and raised hulla. Thereafter all the five accused entered into the house and assaulted his brothers wife (Bhaujai) by foot and removed five boxes containing clothes, ornaments and cash of Rs. 10 or 12 thousands from the house. Gulabi Devi (P.W. 2) and Kapil Chauhan (P.W. 4) also saw them in the light of the Torch flashed by them. The dacoits, while retreating, exploded, bombs and indulged in firing. All the accused persons had concealed their faces with Gamchha. 4. The motive for the occurrence, according to the prosecution was that two years prior to the occurrence there was an exhange of blows (Marpit) between the informants elder brother Ram-Nandan Chauhan (P.W. 1) and the accused persons. Thereafter, two months prior to the occurrence, the accused persons had assaulted Ram Swaroop Chauhan, cousin brother of the informant, in Punarak Khandha north of the Baniyan tree. The immediate motive for the occurrence was that 5-6 days prior to the occurrence, Krishnanand Beldar (P.W. 3) had removed a handful of peas (Kerao) from the field of acquitted accused Haran Gope for the purpose of eating and for that appellant Anuj Gope gave him two lathi blows and in turn the aforesaid Krishnanand Beldar also gave him a lathi blow. In the evening of the same day, the accused persons brought Krishnanand Beldar to their house and tied him with the pillar. After hearing the news the informant alongwith his brother Chanirak (deceased) and others went there and untied Krishnanand Beldar. The deceased Chanirak Chauhan was alleged to have taken a leading part in untying Krishnanand Beldar (P.W. 3), as a result of which the appellants became annoyed and threatened him of dire consequences. After hearing the news the informant alongwith his brother Chanirak (deceased) and others went there and untied Krishnanand Beldar. The deceased Chanirak Chauhan was alleged to have taken a leading part in untying Krishnanand Beldar (P.W. 3), as a result of which the appellants became annoyed and threatened him of dire consequences. According to the prosecution, due to the aforesaid reasons the accused persons brought some persons from outside and thereafter committed the crime. 5. Ek Ram Dubey (P.W. 15) was the officer-in-charge of Pandarak Police Station at the relevant time. At 2.15 A.M. on .22-2-1938 Chawkidar Uchring Pas wan and Prasadi Paswan of village Gwasa Shekhpura Beldari Tola came at the Police Station and informed that Chanirak Chauhan has been murdered. Thereafter, the aroresaid information was entered as Sanha Entry No. 390 (Ext. f) by constable Gajendra Prasad Singh (P.W. 8). The Offcer-in-charge along with A.S.I. Ram Ayodhya Ram (P.W. 12) and constable Gajendra Prasad Singh (P.W. 8) proceeded to the place of occurrence and reached there at 3.30 A.M. and recorded the Fardbeyan (Ext. 9) of the informant Bishundeo Chauhan (P.W. 11) in presence of Ishrar Ahmad (P.W. 10) Sipahi Chauhan and on the basis of which a formal first information report (Ext. 6) was drawn up. 6. The Investigating Officer ordered A.S.I. Ram Ayodhya Ram (P.W. 12) to prepare inquest report, who prepared inquest report (Ext. 3) and thereafter sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He examined the witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence and. found blood fallen on the ground at a distance of 5-7 yards away from the place where the informant was sleeping. He also found 5 boxes in broken condition lying 100 yards away from the house of the informant (Material Exts. 1 to 1 (d)). The informant and other witnesses proauced their torches (Material Exts. F to F/III). He also obtained sanction for the prosecution of the accuesd persons and after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. After the cognizance, usual commitment order was passed and thereafter the accused perspns were put on trial which ended in the conviction of the appellants and acquittal of Haran Gope. 7. The defence of the appellants is that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. According to them no occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution, has taken place. 8. 7. The defence of the appellants is that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. According to them no occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution, has taken place. 8. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of its case, out oi whom P.W. if Bishundeo Chauhan is the eye-witness of the occurrence. P.W. 1 Ram Nandan Chauhan is a witness on the point that on the day of occurrence his younger brothers wife Gulabi Devi (P.W. 2) informed that the appellants were looting the articles and were also searching him for lulling and thereafter he flashed his torch from the place where he was sleeping and saw the appellants armed with gun and lathis and thereafter he fled away towards west upto the road and raised alarm. When he returned back he found Chanirak Chaulian lying dead and his mother and brothers wife Gulabi Devi (P.W. 2) told him that dacoits had taken away 5 boxes and other articles from the house. P.W. 2 Gulabi Devi is a witness on the point that on hearing sound of gun fire she opened the door and the dacoits entered her house whom she identified in the torch light flashed by her. The dacoits assaulted her and entered in one of the rooms of the house and removed 5 boxes from the house containing several valuable articles. P.W. 3 Krishnanand Beldar is the witness on the point of motive that 6 days earlier about 10 A.M. there was a battery between him and appellant Anuj Gope. In the same evening appellants Sheo Narayan, Binod, Ramashray, Anuj and Haran Gope caught hold of him and after tying him with pillar began to assault him and when Chanirak Chauhan (deceased) protested they let him loose and they threatened Chanirak Chauhan of dire consequences for this. P.W. 4 Kapil Chauhan, a co-villager of the accused and the informant, is the witness on the point that on the date of occurrence on hearing the sound of gun firing he woke up and went to his roof and in the torch light he identified appellants Sheo Narayan Gope. Binod Gope, Anup Gope, Ramashray Gope and Haren Gope while fleeing from east to west having 5 boxes with them. Each. appellant was having one box. Binod Gope, Anup Gope, Ramashray Gope and Haren Gope while fleeing from east to west having 5 boxes with them. Each. appellant was having one box. P.W. 7 Siya Ram Chauhan is a witness on the point that a day prior to the occurrence while he was going to Barat and was waiting for train at Pandarak Railway Station, appellant Sheo Narain Gope asked whether Chanirak Chauhan (deceased) was also going to attend the Barat or not. On this, this witness said that he (deceased) was not going to attend the Barat. P.W. 10 Ishrar Ahmad was the Mukhia of the village at that time and he was witness on the point of lodging of F.I.R. P.W. 13 Kameshwar Prasad Sharma and P.W. 14 Suresh Prasad have proved the protest petition filed against the police and the vakalatnama of the informant annexed with the said protest petition P.W. 15 Ek Ram Dubey, as stated above is the Investigation Officer. P.W. 8 Rajendra Pd. Singh, constable, recorded the station diary entry (Ext. 1) and took the dead body to the Hospital for nost-mortem examination and identified the dead body before the doctor. He has proved the Sanha entry as well as command certificate (Ext. 2). P.W. 12 Ram Ayadhya Ram A.S.I, of Police prepared the inquest report (Ext. 3) and also seized the clothes from the dead body (Material Exts. 2 to 2/c). He also seized the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence (Material Ext. 3). P.W. 9 is Dr. Pratap Singh Saihgal, who at the relevant time, was posted as Deputy Superintendent in Barh Sub-divisional Hospital and held autopsy over the dead bodv at 2.30 A.M. on 22-2-1988 and the post-mortern renort is Ext. 4. P.W. 5 Kishori Chauhan and P.W. 6 Jai Ram Chauhan have been tendered. 9. The defence has also examined one witness, an Advocates Clerk, Rajendra Pd. Yadava, who has proved the College transfer certificate granted by the Head Clerk, A.N.S. College, Barh (Ext. A). 10. The informant (P.W. 11) has reiterated the same very statements which he stated in the first information report and narrated vividly as to how the accused persons came to the Khalihan and how the scuffle took place between his brother Chanirak and the accused persons. On hulla when he woke up he found the appellants present there. A). 10. The informant (P.W. 11) has reiterated the same very statements which he stated in the first information report and narrated vividly as to how the accused persons came to the Khalihan and how the scuffle took place between his brother Chanirak and the accused persons. On hulla when he woke up he found the appellants present there. Sheo Narayan Gope fired which caused injury on the back portion of the body of his brother, as a result of which he fell down and died. He has also supported the prosecution story as to how the accused persons entered into the house when his brothers wife (P.W. 2) opened the door of the house and removed the articles. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have also supported that they saw the appellants at the place of occurrence in the torch light flashed by them, though P.Ws. 1 and 2 do not claim to have witnessed the actual firing by Sheo Narayan Gope on the deceased, but they have supported the other part of the prosecution case. P.W. 9 the doctor, who examined the injury on the person of the deceased, found the following injuries : "One lacerated wound 3/4" dia. with inverted edges on mid-line of waist-near L 4, 5 vertibral level going deep inside with no tattooing marks of skin around. On dissection the mesentry of small intestine was punctured one-inch dia. and intestine was also punctured 3/4" dia. near umbilicus. One metal foreign body (bullet) was recovered. It was sent to Police in sealed cover. Abdomen was full of blood. The fourth and fifth lumber vertibra was found fractured." According to the doctor the injuries were caused by fire-arm. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 15) also found blood at the place of occurrence and seized 5 boxes 100 yards away from the house of the informant. He also took torches produced by the witnesses. 11. The first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that in this case the first information report itself was not admissible in evidence, as it was hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as the information that Chanirak Chauhan has been murdered has been given at the Police Station by two Chawkidars. namely. Prasadi Paswan and Uchring Paswan, earlier to the lodging of the F.I.R. and on the basis of which Sanha Entry (Ext. 1) was made. namely. Prasadi Paswan and Uchring Paswan, earlier to the lodging of the F.I.R. and on the basis of which Sanha Entry (Ext. 1) was made. He further contended that as names of the appellants in the earliest information were not given to the police, the subsequent disclosure of their names during the investigation of the case was an afterthought and on this ground alone the prosecution case becomes doubtful, In support of his contention he relied upon Ext. 1 the Sanha entry as well as the statement of Constable (P.W. 8). Gajendra Prasad, who. in his cross-examination, ha.s stated that the Chawkidars informed him that they had gone to the place of occurrence and thereafter they came at the police station. He further stated that the Chawkidars told him that he had a talk with the informant there. 12. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks of the information in a cognizable case. This information is given to the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station first in point of time and as such it is called the first information report, though the word first is not mentioned in the aforesaid section. If any statement is made to the police subsequent to the statement made first in point of time then the aforesaid statement is made during the course of investigation and it can be used only for fhe purpose as mentioned, in Section 162. Cr. P. C. However, this does not mean that lodging of the first information report is a condition precedent for starting investigation. Section 157, Cr. P. C. provides, inter alia, if an Offcer-in-charge of a Police Station, on receiving information or otherwise has reason to suspect commission of offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate then he shall proceed in person or depute one of his subordinate officers to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measure for discovery of things and arrest of the offenders. The question as to whether a particular information received about a case would constitute first information report or not is a question of fact and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not every information received by the police first in point of time that is to be treated as a first information report. The question as to whether a particular information received about a case would constitute first information report or not is a question of fact and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not every information received by the police first in point of time that is to be treated as a first information report. If the information received by the police is vague, uncertain, cryptic, unauthorised or not sufficient then the same cannot be treated as first information report. The information is given by the informant to the police with a view to put the criminal law in motion. On the basis of the said information the police takes suitable action for tracing and bringing to book the guilty persons. In other words, first information report is the earlier report made to the police officer with a view to take action in the matter. If the report is uncertain or cryptic or vague then in such case the police officer would not be in a position to take further action in the right direction and such informations even if given first in point of time cannot be treated as first information report. 13. In the case of Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 1453 , the informant rushed to the police station and informed P.S.I. Mr. Patel about the occurrence. Mr. Patel telephoned to the Surat Police station informing that the murder has been taken place and after getting the instruction from the Surat Police Station registered a case on the basis of the information given by the informant. One of the points raised in that case was to whether the Telephonic message sent by Mr. Patel to Surat Police Station which was earlier in point of time or the information which was received by Mr. Patel and was reduced in writing later on should be treated as first information report. Dealing with the said question the Supreme Court held as follows : "........It is true that under Section 154 of the Code the first information is the earliest report made to the Police Officer with a view to his taking action in the matter. Patel and was reduced in writing later on should be treated as first information report. Dealing with the said question the Supreme Court held as follows : "........It is true that under Section 154 of the Code the first information is the earliest report made to the Police Officer with a view to his taking action in the matter. In the instant case, the complainant had made the report regarding the occurrence having taken place to the P.S.I. Patel, who, however, before reducing in into writing, by way of abundant caution, tried to seek further instructions from the main Police Station at Surat and that is why he had booked a call to Surat. The message given to the Surat Police Station was too cryptic to constitute a first information report within the meaning of Section 154 of the Code and was meant to be only for the purpose of getting further instructions. Further more, the facts narrated to the P.S.I. Patel which were reduced into writing a few minutes later undoubtedly constituted the first information report in point of time made to the police in which necessary facts were given. In these circumstances, therefore, we are clearly of the opinion that the telephonic message to the Police Station at Surat cannot constitute the F.I.R. and the High Court was in error in treating the F.I.R. lodged in the present case as inadmissible in evidence." 14. In the present case the two Chawkidars, on whose information Sanha Entry was alleged to have been made, have not been examined. From persual of the Sanha Entry (Ext. 1) it appears that only information given by the Chawkidars was that Chanirak Chauhan had been murdered. There is no such statement there that Chawkidars have met the informant or had gone to place of occurrence before coming to the Police Station. In absence of any such statement in the San-ha Entry, the statement made by P.W. 8 in his cross-examination that the Chawkidars had reported the matter at the Police Station after visiting the place of occurrence and meeting the informant, cannot be relied upon. This apart in absence of the examination of the Chawkidars, the aforesaid statement alleged to have made by the Chawkidars to him is not admissible in evidence and, in my considered opinion, P.W. 8 has made the aforesaid statement with a view to help the accused persons. This apart in absence of the examination of the Chawkidars, the aforesaid statement alleged to have made by the Chawkidars to him is not admissible in evidence and, in my considered opinion, P.W. 8 has made the aforesaid statement with a view to help the accused persons. The informant and the other witnesses (P.Ws. 1 and 2) have already stated that the Chawkidars had not come at the place of occurrence before arrival of the police. Thus, it is clear that the Chawkidars had gone at che police station without meeting the informant and visiting the place of occurrence. 15. Thus, the information given by the Chawkidars being cryptic and unauthorised cannot be treated as the first information report and the fust information report in the present case is one which has been lodged by Bishundeo Chauhan (P.W. 11) and was rightly treated as such by the trial Court. Accordingly, the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants on this score is fit to be rejected. 16. Learned counsel for . the appellants further contended that in this case there was a long delay in sending the first information report by the polie officials to the Magistrate as required under Section 157, Cr. P. C, as a result of which the prosecution case has become suspicious. According to the learned counsel this shows that the first information report was not lodged at the time as alleged by the prosecution. On the other hand, the first information report was lodged later on with, due deliberation and concoction and in that view of the matter the prosecu tion case has become doubtful and is fit to be rejected. In this connection he contended that the first information report though lodged on 22-2-88 was despatched from the police station 23-2-88 and was received in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, on 25-2-88. There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution with regard to the delay in despatching the first information report from the police station as well as its receipt in the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, on 25-2-88. There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution with regard to the delay in despatching the first information report from the police station as well as its receipt in the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in A.I.R. 1976 SC 2423, Ishwar Singh v. State of V. P., as well as a Division Bench decision, reported in 1992 (1) PLJR 161Abdul Rahman and others v. State of Bihar, to show that the delay in sending the first information report to trie Magistrate is fatal to the prosecution case. In support of his submission he relied upon the statement made in paragraph 34 of the statement of P.W. 2, wherein she has stated that the Police arrived at about sun rise (Rauda) at the place of occurrence as well as the statement of P.W. 4 in paragraph 6 wherein he has stated that he went near the dead body one or two hours after the sun rise and saw only three persons present there. Thus, according to the learned counsel the police arrived at the place of occurrence after sun rise and then recorded the Fardbeyan. 17. Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides, inter alia that the Officer-in-charge of a police station shall forthwith send the first information report to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance upon a police report. The object behind sending of the F.I.R. to the concerned Magistrate is that he will have an early information about the crime so that he may exercise his power under Section 159 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Forthwith despatch of the first information report is also a safe-guard against concocticn and embellishment in the F.I R. The question for determination is as to the effect of delay in despatching of F.I.R. from the police station to the concerned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the case of Ishwar Singh (supra) wherein a Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of two Hon ble Judges held as follows : "........Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1838 as well as of 1673 both require the first information report to be sent "forthwith" to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence. No explanation is offered for this extraordinary delay in sending the report to the Magis trate. This is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting, as Mr. Anthony suggested, that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. In this case the suspicion hardens into a definite possibility when one finds that the case made in Court differs at least in two very important particulars from that narrated in the F.I.R. Mahabir Singh, who lodged the first information report......" A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Rahaman and others v. The State of Bihar, 1992 (1) PLJR 161, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Singh (supra) held that as there was long delay in sending the first information report to the Court, there is reason to believe that the F.I.R. is ante dated and investigation is tainted. In my opinion, the apex Court in the aforesaid case has not laid down an absolute rule of law that delay in sending the F.I.R., which is not explained by the prosecution, is itself fatal to the prosecution case. It appears that in the facts of the particular case it was held that the first information report was not forwarded or sent forthwith, as a result of which the prosecution case had become suspicious. 18. The question as to the effect of non-compliance of the provision of Section 157, Cr. P. C. in not sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate forthwith was considered by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of three Hon ble Judges in the case of Faia Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 2679 , wherein it was held that delay in despatching the F.I.R. cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted. It was observed as follows : "......Section 157, Cr. P. C. requires such report to be sent forthwith by the police officer concerned to a 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. P. C. requires such report to be sent forthwith by the police officer concerned to a 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. 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 other 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 not the appellants case that they have been prejudiced by this delay." 19. The said question was again considered by a Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of three Hon ble Judges in the case of Sarwan Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2304 , wherein the view taken in the case of Pala Singh (supra) was followed and it was held that "Belay in the despatch of the first information report is not a circumstance which can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety". This judgment in the case was rendered after the decision in the case of Ishwar Singh (supra). 20. It is well settled that if there are contradictory decisions of the Supreme Court on a particular point and the former decision is of a larger Bench, than the latter then the decision of the larger Bench is to be followed. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Mattulal v. Radhelal, AIR 1974 SC 15%. Thus, it cannot be held as contended by the counsel for the appellants that as there was delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Court the prosecution case has to be thrown out as being suspicious or the F.I.R. in this case was lodged at a time letter than the time asserted by the prosecution. 21. In my opinion, even if there is delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate as required by Section 157, Cr. P. C, on that ground alone the investigation cannot be said to be tainted nor that can be a ground for throwing out the prosecution in its entirety. 21. In my opinion, even if there is delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate as required by Section 157, Cr. P. C, on that ground alone the investigation cannot be said to be tainted nor that can be a ground for throwing out the prosecution in its entirety. Even in the cases which have been relied by the counsel for the appellants, as I have noticed above, it has not been laid down as an absolute rule of law that on failure to sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate forthwith would be fatal to the prosecution case. In the facts and circumstances of those cases it has been held that the delay in sending the F.I.R. has made the prosecution case doubtful. The question whether the delay in despatching the F.I.R. by the police to the Magistrate as enjoined under Section 157, Cr P. C. is a serious defect in the prosecution case or not is dependent upon the facts of each case. The facts of a particular case may be such from which an inference could be drawn that there was inordinate delay on the part of the police in not sending the first information report to the Magistrate without any valid explanation and the same would be treated as a serious lacuna in prosecution case. While in the other case even if there is a delay in sending the F.I.R. some additional facts and explanation given by the prosecution may show that the delay in sending the F.I.R. has not prejudiced the prosecution case at all. But in view of the decisions of the apex Court, as mentioned above, it sannot be held that only on the ground of delay in sending the first information report to the Magistrate concerned the prosecution case should be thrown out in its entirety. 22. Coming to the facts of the present case, I may mention at this stage that during the investigation the informant filed a protest petition (Ext. 7) complaining that the Investigating Officer was helping the accused persons. Even in Court he has stated that the police was colluding with the accused persons. The conduct of the Investigating Officer in this case, which I would discuss at a later stage, indicates that he was not fair to the prosecution in this case. 7) complaining that the Investigating Officer was helping the accused persons. Even in Court he has stated that the police was colluding with the accused persons. The conduct of the Investigating Officer in this case, which I would discuss at a later stage, indicates that he was not fair to the prosecution in this case. It appears that he did not despatch the F.I.R. in this case only with a view to help the accused persons for the aforesaid reasons. 23. The circumstances relied upon by the counsel for the appellants for showing that the F.I.R. was not recorded at the lime as alleged by the prosecution is also of no help to the appellants. No doubt, P.W. 2 in para 34 of her statement stated that the police came alter sun rise. To a question put by the Court, as noted down in the said paragraph she has stated that she was illiterate and as such she could not say as to whether it was 4 A.M. or some different time when the police officer came. In para 7 her statement shows that she was examined by the police officer at 4 A.M. She is a rustic lady having no idea of time and on the basis of her isolated statement as relied upon by the counsel for the appellants it cannot be held that police officer came in the village after sun rise. From reading of her entire evidence, it is clear that the police officer arrived at the place of occurrence during night. Similarly, from the entire statements of P.W. 6 made in paragraph 6, no inference could be drawn that -he police officer came after sun rise, as -suggested by the counsel for the appellants. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 15) and other police officials P.Ws. 8 and 12 and other P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 7 have clearly said that the police officers came during night and there is no reason to disbelieve their statement and as such I do not find any force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants that the first information report was not recorded at time as alleged by the prosecution. The delay in sending the F.I.R. in this case, in my opinion, has not caused any prejudice to the accused nor on that ground the prosecution case can be thrown out. 24. The delay in sending the F.I.R. in this case, in my opinion, has not caused any prejudice to the accused nor on that ground the prosecution case can be thrown out. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that in this case the prosecution version that the accused persons were idenfified ir the torch light of the prosecution witnesses is falsified by the fact that no seizure list of torches which were produced before the police has been prepared. Similarly, he contended that no seizure list regarding the blood found at the place of occurrence or with regard to the boxes which were found 100 yards away from the place of occurrence has been prepared and thus it creates a serious doubt about the veracity and truthfulness of the prosecution version. As I have mentioned above in this case the informant has filed the pretest petition which has been proved by P.W. 13 as Ext. 7. The informant has also stated about the partisan attitude of the police officers in his examination in-chief and there is no cross-examination with regard to the aforesaid statement on behalf of the accused. From the statement of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 15) as well as the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 11, it is clear that the torches were produced by the witnesses to the Investigating Officer when he arrived at the place of occurrence. It is also proved by the statement of the Investigating Officer and the other witnesses that the boxes were found near the place of occurrence and those boxes were entrusted by the Investigating Officer to the informant. He also found blood at the place of occurrence. Even then the Investigating Officer did not prepare the seizure lists and this supports the allegation of the informant that he purposely did not prepare the seizure lists with a view to help the accused persons. Thus, absence of seizure lists with regard to the torches, boxes as well as blood found at the place of occurrence do not. in my opinion, affect the prosecution case. 25. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that in this case there is only one eye-witness, namely, the informant Bishundeo Chauhan (P.W. 11) and his evidence does not inspire confidence in view of inherent and apparent improbabilities in his evidence. in my opinion, affect the prosecution case. 25. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that in this case there is only one eye-witness, namely, the informant Bishundeo Chauhan (P.W. 11) and his evidence does not inspire confidence in view of inherent and apparent improbabilities in his evidence. According to the learned counsel this witness has stated that he woke up as a result of scuffle going on between his brother and the accused persons and then he raised hulla and thereafter Sheo Narayan Gope fired at his brother. The said statement, according to him, is highly improbable and cannot be accepted. His claim of witnessing the occurrence and identifying the accused person in the torch light from a distance of 50 yards is also improbable. I am unable to agree with the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. From reading the entire statements of this witness it appears that he is a truthful witness and has correctly identified the appellants in torch light. He has clearly stated that the scuffle was going on. between three accused and his brother at the distance of 3-4 cubits from the Palani where he was standing at the time of occurrence and at that place appellant Sheo Narayan Gope fired at his brother. Thus, in my opinion, it was possible for him to identify the appellants in the torch light flashed by him. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the statement of this witness is not supported by the medical evidence, as, according to this witness, after scuffle the appellants are alleged to have fired and as such the firing was done from very close range. According to the evidence of the doctor there was no tatooing mark on the skin around the injury and as such firing was done from a distance of more than four feet and the same belies the prosecution case I may mention that it is not the prosecution case that the firing was made from a veryclose range and as such absence of tatooing mark is not a circumstance which goes against the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel this witness has stated that the appellants were at a distance of 3 to 4 cubits from the deceased and the barrel of the gun at the time of firing was at a distance of 2 cubits from the deceased and as such the firing was made from a close range. The informant is a rustic villager and he has given the distance between the appellant Sheo Narayan Gope and the deceased by estimate, and, as such, from the aforesaid statement it cannot be said that the firing was made from a close range. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the medical evidence supports the prosecution case instead of falsifying the same As stated above, soon after the occurrence P.W. 11 disclosed the name of the appellants to the other witnesses who had arrived at the place of occurrence. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 have also supported the prosecution case as stated above. Learned counsel for the appellants did not point out any other infirmity in their evidence except that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are on inimical terms with the two of the appellants, namely, Binod Gope and Anuj Gope. These witnesses have stated that Haran Gope (since acquitted), father of the aforesaid appellants had brought a criminal case against P.W. 1 and his family members. On that ground their evidence cannot be rejected as they have fully supported the prosecution case. So far as P.W. 4 is concerned, nothing has been brought to show that he was on inimical term with the appellants. The occular version is fully corroborated by the objective findings of the Investigating Officer and the medical evidence. 26. There is no merit in this appeal. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellants. It is, accordingly, dismissed. N.K.SINHA, J. 27 I agree.