K. NARAYAN, J. Yasin and Sabir both sons of Mohammad Ibrahim were tried on charge under Section 302/34, I. P. C. , by the Sessions Judge, Moradabad and by a judgment and order dated 11-7-1979, have been convict ed and sentenced to imprisonment for life under the above said section. 2. The charge related to an occurrence of about 4. 45 p. m. on 30-9-77 in mohalla Pakka Bagh, Police Station Kotwali, Moradabad, in which one Mohammad Umar was done to death with knife injuries. There is no dispute that the decased was a man of bad anticidents and may bevery hot blooded. The prosecution contention has been that in the earlier part of 30-9-1977, there was some exchange of hot words and the deceased had given few slaps to Mohammad Ibrahim, the father of the accused. After about two hours of this incident the two accused came to the house of deceased and with an ostentation that the differences be patched up as Ibrahim was after all an old aged gentleman, respectable for all. With the pretext of the above nature the deceased was taken with them. In the same evening at about 5. 00 p. m. Mohammad Yusuf, the father of the deceased was informed by Abdul Wahid and Abdul Gaffur about the deadly assault upon the person of Mohmmad Umar. The communication was summoned in the form the Yasin and Sabir had assaulted Mohammad Umar with knife and he was lying dead. Mohammad Yusuf went to the spot and after seeing his son dead, got the report written by Abdul Qamar, and went to the police station to lodge the same. The first information report is shown to have been lodged at 18. 30 hours on 30-9-77. 3. The Investigation is said to have proceeded in ususaf manner. The cace was registered at Rapat No. 32 of the G. D. by PW 8 Sri Ram Prakash Sharma. The Investigation was handed over to Sri Vijai Bahadur Singh, Sub-Inspector (PW 6) while at the same time, another Sub-Inspector of police Sri Prabhu Singh was directed to conduct the inquest upon the body of Moham mad Umar. PW 7 Shyam Narayan Singh, Sub-Inspector the Station Officer, had taken up the investigation at the last stages and submitted the charge-sheet. The post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased was con ducted by PW 1 Dr. Ramesh Chandra. 4. PW 7 Shyam Narayan Singh, Sub-Inspector the Station Officer, had taken up the investigation at the last stages and submitted the charge-sheet. The post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased was con ducted by PW 1 Dr. Ramesh Chandra. 4. In addition to the above said evidence the prosecution had examined FW 2. Mohammad Yusuf, the father of the deceased who had lodged the first infoimation report. He had also stated that the deceased had gone with the accused a few hours before the death and for this fact he has been corroborated by PW 5 Bashir Ahmad. This aspect does not seem to have been challenged in the cross- examination although as a matter of fact both the facts i. e. the alleged occurrence between deceased and Mohammad Ibrahim and ostentiate taking of the deceased by the accused were denied by them in the examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. Be that whatever it may, the first part is not material now, as it could be only an evidence of motive which loses its value when there is occular evidence and the second could only be a form of circum stantial evidence which could lend support to the story of prosectution. In the given circumstances of the case, these facts as proved do not contradict the case of prosecution. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the evidence of the prosecution on three main grounds. His effort has been to show that the first information report was not lodged at time shown, the witnesses PW 3. Chhotey, and PW 4, Sri Abdul Wahid, were in tact got up witnesses and had not seen the occurrence and were partisan. 6. The testimony of PW 3, Chhotey and PW 4, Abdul Wahid has been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant here with the contention that it has contradicted the first information report where both accused were said to have caused injuries by knife. The language employed in the first infor mation report has been "ibrahim ke ladko Yasin and Shabir ne Chakuo se Pakke Bagh main Mohammad Umar ko mara hai. " Firstly this in my opinion is no difference much less a contradiction or any improvement. The language employed in the first infor mation report has been "ibrahim ke ladko Yasin and Shabir ne Chakuo se Pakke Bagh main Mohammad Umar ko mara hai. " Firstly this in my opinion is no difference much less a contradiction or any improvement. The worst blame that can be put for the two is that the first information report did not give the detail, which has been given in the statement of the witness and that is nowhere the requirement of law. Apart from this, the fact also remains that the first information in this case was lodged by a person who was himself conveyed something by the eye-witnesses and who had then conveyed the facts to the scribe. It is an ordinary saying that a tale twice told is tale altered and the cases of the present nature where the person receiving and reconveying the tale, may be even the persons who were conveying it in the first instance, all had a shock, though verying in degree due to a murder in cold blood, and that too of a son. This mental state of a person cannot be divorced while weighing his evidence. The evidence of the witnesses can be appreciated with an imagination of their feelings at that time and not by application of principles and standards of an author of prose, who is expected to have thought twice in the use of every word at proper place. This presum ptive approach towards the evidence is expected with the application of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and for behaving like a man of ordinary prudence to come to the conclusion of proved as defined in the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant had urged that injury No. 8 of the deceased could not be have been caused if the deceased was held from the back. Injury No. 8 was as under : (8) Punctured wound 1. 5 cm. x O. 25 cm. X abdominal cavity deep on the right side back X 10 cm. below the inferior angle of right scapula directed down wards and forward. The cross-examination had rightly not been directed to find out every movements, movents of the deceased and the assailants as no man can detail then in the witness box unless he has a photographic memory. X abdominal cavity deep on the right side back X 10 cm. below the inferior angle of right scapula directed down wards and forward. The cross-examination had rightly not been directed to find out every movements, movents of the deceased and the assailants as no man can detail then in the witness box unless he has a photographic memory. But at the same time again, it will be wrong to think that the victim once held in a particular manner will stop resisting and bear all the injuries like a dead log. The urge for life gives enormous strength even to weeks and the deceased was a crimi nal who have generally strength and nerve both without which they cannot survive. There is every possibility that the deceased might have been free from clutches of Mohammad Yasin for some moment may be even the last when a blow was given from the back. It cannot be said to be an impos-sibilty and unless that be the situation a statement on oath is not to be brushed aside. 8. The presence of PW 4, Abdul Wahid, has been challenged on the ground that the had no reason to be there. Firstly there was some reason for his presence which shall discuss below but before that I would like to say that reason cause and effects etc. of a fact in issue are relevant but it will be wrong to say that nothing can happen without a reason or where there is a reason there should be a particular effect. Many things every day are done by individuals without reason. A person not regular his walks, goes out for a walk just on intuiation where is the reason for it ? Would he be an incompetent witness for a fact that he might have seen just because he took a walk that day. The witness has stated that he had gone to see his ailing sister-in-law that day and that the sister-in-law Jamila is daughter of one Sukha and lives in Idgah. She is a cousin of his wife. The testimony has been challenged with reference to the statement of PW 4, Bashir, who had stated in his cross-examination that Jamila had been divorced by her husband Nasim who lived and lives in Idgah. She is a cousin of his wife. The testimony has been challenged with reference to the statement of PW 4, Bashir, who had stated in his cross-examination that Jamila had been divorced by her husband Nasim who lived and lives in Idgah. The residence of Jamila in Idgah was said to be put into doubt and it has been usged that if Abdul Wahid had no occasion to go Idgah he would be got up a witness. The fact of the matter however is that Jamila referred to in the cross-examination of PW 5, Bashir, Ahmad is daughter of Sukha, and Smt. Jamila referred to by PW 4, Abdul Wahid, is daughter of Nathua. Abdul Wahid had two marriage and it would have needed a cinch to undo his evidence in this manner instead of a half heai ted attempt to create a confusion and leave it there is fact most of his cross-examination has been somewhat argumentative which cannot lead anywhere. 9. PW 3, Chhotey, is another eye-witness of the occurrence and had stated about the assault. His testimony has been challenged on the ground that he has been a partner in business with one Mohd. Yaqub. , The partnes-ship has been denied by him. It has been admitted by him that Mohd. Yaqub is a co- defendant with him in case brought by one Mohd. Iliyas. He does not know what that suit is and he does not know if he has given a written statement in that case as a partner of Mohd. Yaqub. The capacities of these illiterate persons needs no imagination and it is general that they do not know what they are signing in civil suits. Be it whatever it may, even if it is presumed for a moment that this witness has been a partner with Mohd. Yusuf, what does it mean and how does it matter ? There is no person without affinities and absolutely indifferent person in the circumstances prevailing in present time would not care to come for evidence. The interest has to be there and it will vary in every case as to what the interest is. One may be avoided on account of relationship in civil matters, where the facts are under control and the witnesses are to be chosen. The interest has to be there and it will vary in every case as to what the interest is. One may be avoided on account of relationship in civil matters, where the facts are under control and the witnesses are to be chosen. In crimiual cases, the witnesses have to be taken from those had been at the spot, may be even chance. The courts should have a caution if their interest in giving testimony is such that can result in a false statement. It may get weight when the witness has an axe to grind with the accused, or be has some reason to bring pressure upon the accused by his evidence but where the interest is in the victim and specially the deceased, the witness stands to gain nothing. The dead has gone and the interest in him, if any, is now only limited to get the guilty punished. Whey should an interested person bear an evidence, agair st an anticident person, even if he has been a close relative of the deceased ? It can be only to get the noose around the real guilty unless there is something not desirable between the accused and the witness. There is not even a suggestion in this behalf. 10. The other ground for which his testimony was challenged was that he had committed mistake in going out to get something for his grand son, On the close day of the week. It is a very common mistake, and no mistake is ever, committed for any reason. Behaviours with grand children, have sometimes to be child like and one may even move about with then without any reason. To expect a regularity from behaviour with children, is itself some what irregular expectation. 11, It was also urged that according to PW 3, Chhotey, the corpse of Mohammad Umar, was taken away by police at about 6 p. m. and this is not correct. Since this aspect will be material for another argument also, I will deal with it here and use the conclusion later. The first information report was lodged at 6 p. m. and naturally the body could not have been taken away after inquest without any expense in time. The contradiction is there but is it one of truth or false hood ? The reason lies merely in the change of solar equinoxes. The first information report was lodged at 6 p. m. and naturally the body could not have been taken away after inquest without any expense in time. The contradiction is there but is it one of truth or false hood ? The reason lies merely in the change of solar equinoxes. The occurrence was of 30-9-1977 and the state ment was given on 22-1-1979, and the time of 6 p. m. be on 22-1-1979 will be about half an hour after sun set, and on 30-9-1977 half an hour after sun set will mean around 7 p. m. which will almost be near the extacted time of conclusion of inquest. 12. There is thus no reason in so far as the statements are concerned, to discard the testimony of these two witnesses. Of course, PW 2 Mohd. Yusuf had stated about the cause of the murder but that is simply hearsay and may be ignored, because that at the same time would not make any difference as motive could corroborate but the absence thereof would not derrogate the eye-witness account. Similar is the fate of the other part of his statement and PW 5, Bashir Ahmads statement that the deceased had gone with the accused. Last seen evidence is immaterial when there is evidence of occurrence itself. 13. I will now take up the part of the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant attempting to show that the investigation as not proper and there have been concotions in evidence to implicate the accused. His effort has been to make out that there has been delay in the first information report, the inquest was conducted before giving a final shape to the F. I. R. and, therefore, they should loose weight. The address was to point out the following as descrepancies. In the original inquest report, the time of commencement and completion of the inquest has not been given, and the so-called difference in the flow of ink in the top of the original inquest report in the words 1830 (time) and 32 (Repat Number of G. D. ). Before proceed ing with the law in this behalf I will prefer to record by observations as a fact. Before proceed ing with the law in this behalf I will prefer to record by observations as a fact. The rapat number and time have been given in the body of the inquest and though I may not subscribe to the view that it has been added later by filling the blank, even if it be so it will mean that the report No. 32 i. e. , the registering the case had been completed before the inquest report was parted with by the Sub-Inspector of police. It is certain that the copy of this rapat was given to the constable as it has reached the medical officer and he has regard it too, with marking 9/383/77, dated 1-10-1977. Reference to it on the back in the narration shows that in fact the copy of rapat was there and the first information report had been completed by then, Constable Jagram Singh was given this body. He could have bean the test witness to state about the tale and movement of the body. His affidavit was filed and is Ex. ka-13 and he had deposed that he was posted in Kotwali on 30-9-1977 and on that in the evening he was handed over the body by Sri. P. S. Bhati to take it to the morfuary. There is a note or counsel for defence no cross. Sd. dated 22-1-1979. The defence has not challenged the above statement when he had opportunity. Does it lie in his mouth to dispute it merely from omissions now ? It may be true that full particulars of the case, crime number etc. have not been recorded on any papers enclosed to the inquest report but that is a mere omission which cannot be said to be even direliation of duty as recording them is not a must as no such column is provided and above all the copy of G. D. 32 was there with all these details and it cannot be said that they were not known what to say that they did not exist. Nothing could be shown to justify that in column number 1 of the inquest the time of commencement of the inquest has to be filled as a must. 14. Nothing could be shown to justify that in column number 1 of the inquest the time of commencement of the inquest has to be filled as a must. 14. The other discrepancy hinted out was that in the first infromation report the distance of mohalla Pakka Bagh from thana was mentioned as five furlongs, while in the inquest report it was mentioned as 2 K. M. This is a matter of city area 2 K. M. will be approximately 9 furlongs. The police station records show the distance of mohalla which itself may extend to even a mile. If the real place of occurrence was at 9 furlongs according to route taken by the Investigation Officer it was not a contradiction but a matter of exactness of a circle and the point from the police station. 15. The next discrepancy alleged was mention of sharp edged weapon (dhardhar Hathiyar) instead of chaku in the inquest report. This again is the question of exactness and broader version only. These details are uncalled for in the inquest report in view of Supreme Court decision to be quoted below. 16. It will next proceed to consider the law which may obtain in appreciation of this so-called omission. The first information report is not a final document and so far as evidence is concerned it has to be read as an information only. Of course, it has to be lodged at the earliest and contains a version it may be given an additional weight as a matter of sponteniety but even if, for any reason such weight cannot be granted, it does not loose anything unless it can be shown that it was a result of manipulation. This manipulation has to be proved or heavily indicated as a fact and the mere impression of the defence that it could have been ante timed would not obtain. Anti-timing of an F. I. R. may corroborate an impression of mani pulation but cannot be the sole substantive peice of evidence for the same learned counsel for the appellant has referred to certain decision where the contents and omissions in inquest report have weighed with this Court but in all there were other factors too. Appreciation of an evidence cannot be said to be binding or even persu isive as judicial decision. Facts and cir cumstances of cases vary for the weight to be attached to them. Appreciation of an evidence cannot be said to be binding or even persu isive as judicial decision. Facts and cir cumstances of cases vary for the weight to be attached to them. The case; referred were the decision in Balkar Singh and others v. State, 1987 (24) ACC p. 42 and Banwari and others v. The State of Rajasthan, 1979 Cr LJ 161 (Raj.) In the later case despite observations about propriety of im mediate preparation it does not seem to have weighed with the Court. In yet another case, Paras Ram v. State of A. P. , 1973 Cr LJ 428, the Court does not seem to have given weight to the evidence of medical officer that she was not certain if the report was made available to her or not (para 8 ). In yet another case Baboo Poojari v. State of Karnataka (supra), the accused was not named in the first information report somehow and was also corrected after identification proceedings which was upheld by the Supreme Court [j. T. 1992 (5) SC 572]. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in this behalf Pooda Narayan and others v. State of Atidhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1252 , may be quoted here : "9. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants tried to support the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and pointed out a number of circumstances which according to him a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. In the first place, it was argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly held that as the F. I. R. did not contain the overt acts attributed to each of the accused, the story of the prosecution must be held to be an after thought. Dealing with this aspect of the matter, the High Court pointed out that the F. I. R. was lodged soon after the occurrence and there was no occasion for the information to have mentioned all the material particulars in the F. I. R. which had to be narrated and proved at the trial. The find overselves in com plete agreement with the reasons given by the High Court. In fact we find from the perusal of Ext. P-1 that all the essential details that the F. I. R. should contain are given there. The find overselves in com plete agreement with the reasons given by the High Court. In fact we find from the perusal of Ext. P-1 that all the essential details that the F. I. R. should contain are given there. The names of the accused are clearly mentioned, the circumstances leading to the murderous assault on the deceased Linganna have been set out. It has also been mentioned that the accused got down from the jeep along with three strangers and stabbed the deceased and then carried him away in the jeep. It is also mentioned that the occurrence had taken place because the de ceased had filed a civil suit against A-1 which constituted the motive for the murder, Thus shorn of minutest detail the broad picture presented by the prosecution was undoubtedly revealed in the F. I. R. which was lodged very soon after the occurrence. In our opinion, it is neither customary nor necessary to mention every minute detail in the F. I. R. Chinna PW 1 must have been extremely perturbed because the deceased Linganna had been suddenly attacked by a number of assailants and his body was carried away. It is in that state mental agony that he was not able to give further details in the F. I. R. We are, there fore clearly of the opinion that the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for rejecting the prosecution case are wholly untenable in law. " 17 Another point taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that in the inquest report details of the overt acts committed by the various accused have not been mentioned in the relevant column. The learned Judge in fact has assumed without any legal justification that because the details were not mentioned in the requisite column of the inquest report, there fore the presumption will be that the eye-witnesses did not mention the overt acts in their statements before the police. To begin with it seem to us that the learned Additional Sessions Judges approach is legally erroneous. A statement recorded by the police during the investigation is not at all admissible and the proper procedure is to confront the witnesses with the contradictions when they are examined and then ask the Investigating Officer regarding those contraditions. This does not appear to have been done in this case. A statement recorded by the police during the investigation is not at all admissible and the proper procedure is to confront the witnesses with the contradictions when they are examined and then ask the Investigating Officer regarding those contraditions. This does not appear to have been done in this case. Furthermore, proceedings for inquest under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have a very limited scope. Section 174 of the Code as it then stood read as follows: "174. Police to enquire an i report on suicide, etc.- (I) The officer-in-charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf, on receiving information that a person- (a) has committed suicide ; or (b) has been killed by another, or by an animal, or by machinery, or by an accident ; or (c) has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence. Shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any) such marks appear to have been inflicted. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (3) When there is any doubt regarding the cause of death, or when for any other reason the police officer considers it expedient so to do, he shall, subject to such rules as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the State Government, if the State of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless. 18. 18. A perusal of this provision would clearly show that the object of the proceedings under Section 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or; an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted appears to us to be foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174. In these circumstances, there fore, neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to have mentioned these details in the inquest report. The High Court has adverted to this point and has rightly pointed out as follows: "the learned Sessions Judge had also stated that the details regarding the weapons armed by each of the accused and which accused had attacked on which part of the body of the deceased are net found in the inquest report and from this he sought to draw the inference that the statements of the witnesses now found re corded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. , could not have been the state ments then read over to the Panchayatdars. Column 9 of the inquest report shows that the injuries on the deceased were caused by knives and daggers. Column 11 (a) showns that A-1 to A-3, A-4 and A-5 with 3 strangers came in the jeep driven by A-4, got down from the jeep, stabbed the deceased with daggers and knives, pushed PW 1, lifted the deceased, put him in the jeep, and drove away the jeep and death was the result of the injuries inflicted. The object of holding any inquest as can be seen from Section 174, Cr. P. C. , is to find whether a person died a natural death, or a homicidal death or due to suicide. It was, therefore, not necesssary to enter all the details of the overt-acts in the inquest report. From the mere fact that these details were not noted in the inquest report it cannot be concluded that the statements given by the witnesses and read over at the inquest did not contain those overt acts and the statements now produced are those of the witness which were taken later. "the inquest is a part of investigation. From the mere fact that these details were not noted in the inquest report it cannot be concluded that the statements given by the witnesses and read over at the inquest did not contain those overt acts and the statements now produced are those of the witness which were taken later. "the inquest is a part of investigation. On the contrary the general diary is a book kept in regular course of business and has more value in view of Section 33 of the Evidence Act. it will be against the principles of justice to sit with a presumption that all that is done at a police station is a manipulation. They also public ser vants and are presumed to keep there house in order and according to law. It will need something substantial to rebut this presump tion. Why should they join hands with the father or any other man of the deceased and fabricate documents when nobody has any grievance against the accused except the murder in question. " 18. For the above reasons I am in judgment that neither the witnesses were unnatural, nor partisan, nor there has been any such improvement or manipulation in the case which may make the evidence unworthy of credit. This appeal should therefore fail. The appeal is dismissed; and the conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge are sustained. The appellants are on bail. They shall surrender to the bails and serve out the sentences according to law. Appeal dismissed. .