R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 109 of 1989 has been filed by Bhikari Behera challenging his conviction under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentence of regorous imprisonment for life imposed thereunder. Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1989 has been filed by Pramod Kumar Mantri and Bhagirathi Rout challenging their conviction under Section 304 Part-II I. P. C. and sentence of regorous imprisonment for five years inflicted thereunder. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, they were heared together and are disposed of this judgment. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid three appellants along with nine others were charged under Sections 148/452/302 read with Section 149 I. P. C. The appellants were also separately charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION is that on 28-5-1988 at about 10 a. m. appellants along with their associates formed an unlawful being around with delay weapons in front of the house of the informant Sanatan in village Biswanthpur and abused him and other family members. They forcibly made entry into his house, assaulted his father Bauribandhu on his head by means of lathis, dragged him out-side and three him on the ground. They also assaulted Santan's mothers and thereafter left the Sopt. The injured Bauribandhu was taken in a cart to Tigiria hospital, while he was being taken for better treatment from Tigiria to Cuttack, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. On the basis of the F. I. R. lodged by Sanatan (P. W. I.) investigation was taken up. After its completion, the appellants along with nine others were charge-sheeted. ( 4 ) THE learned Second Additional Session Judge has convicted the appellant Bhikari Behere under Section 302 I. P. C. for having committed the murder of Bauribandhu. He has convicted the appellants Pramod Kumar Mantri and Bhagirathi Rout under Section 304 Part-II I. P. C. because of the fact that the helped appellant Bhikari in dragging the injured Bauribandhu out of his house and for the part played by them prior, during and after the incident of infliction of murderous assault on Bauribandhu by appellant Bhikari. He has convicted the appellants Pramod Kumar Mantri and Bhagirathi Rout under Section 304 Part-II I. P. C. because of the fact that the helped appellant Bhikari in dragging the injured Bauribandhu out of his house and for the part played by them prior, during and after the incident of infliction of murderous assault on Bauribandhu by appellant Bhikari. ( 5 ) ALTHOUGH the general plea of the appellants was one of denial, they examined three witnesses in support of their case that when one Dhadi Rout was attacked by the deceased Bauribandhu and his family members, the former in order to defend himself brandished a thenga which accidentally hit Bauribandhu who succumbed to the said injuries. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the prosecution, 12 witnesses were examined. The conviction of the appellants is based on the eye witness account testified by P. W. 1. (son of the deceased Bauribandhu), P. W. 2 (window of deceased Bauribandhu) and P. W. 3 (brother of the deceased Bauribandhu ). ( 7 ) WE have perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. P. W. 1 (son of the deceased) stated that Harihar (P. W. 8) is his paternal uncle being the brother of his father Bauribandhu. He was a ward Member of the village. The accused suspected his uncle to have mis-appropriated the panchayat fund and bore grudge against the entire family. On the date of occurrence at about 10 a. m. the accused persons including the appellants being armed with thenges came to their house to attack his father and other family members. When appellant bhagirathi tried to assault him, out of fear he went inside the court-yard, the appellants Bhikari, Pramod and Bhagirathi entered inside the house. His father Bauribandhu was sitting on the verandah of the court-yard to take his food. Then appellant Bhikari dealt two blows by means of a sisu thenga on the left side head of his father. He fell down sustaining injuries. Thereafter all the three appellant dragged the injured. When his mother P. W. 2 protested and asked the appellants to leave her husband, it was accused Indramani (not appellant) dealt a blow with a thenga on the head of his mother. She lost her senses. He fell down sustaining injuries. Thereafter all the three appellant dragged the injured. When his mother P. W. 2 protested and asked the appellants to leave her husband, it was accused Indramani (not appellant) dealt a blow with a thenga on the head of his mother. She lost her senses. The three appellant dragged the injured and threw him on the ground saying that he was already dead. P. W. 2 is the widow. She has fully corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 by testifying that appellant Bhikari first gave two blows on the head of her husband and then all the three appellants dragged her husband and when she intervened, accused Indramani dealt two blows on her head. As a result of said blows she fell down and lost senses. P. W. 3 stated that on the date of occurrence at about 10 a. m. all the accused persons being armed with thengas reshed to their house and abused them in filthy languages. The three appellants entered in to their house with thengas. At that time, the deceased was sitting and was about to take his food. Suddenly, appellant Bhikari gave two blows by means of thenga on his head. P. W. 1, 2 and 3 were thoroughly cross-examined but nothing substantial was brought out to discredit their testimony. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that no motive was ascribed by the prosecution for commission of the offence for which the prosecution case has to be doubted. Learned counsel in his note of argument has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atley v. State of Uttar pradesh, A. I. R. 1955 S. C. 807 (1955 Cri LJ 1653) and a Bench decision of this Court in Benguli Subarna Khuntia v. State of Orissa, 1984 C. L. R. 364 (1985 Cri L. J. 580 ). In the case of Atley (supra) it was argued that the evidence led by the prosecution did not clearly establish the motive for the crime. While dealing with the said argument, the Supreme Court observed as follows at page 1656 of Cri LJ :-"that is true; and when there is clear proof of motive for the crime, that lends additional support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty but the absence of clear proof of motive does not necessarily lead to the contrary conclusion. If the prosecution had proved by clear evidence that the appellant had reasons of his own for getting his first wife out of the way, that would have lent additional assurance to the circumstantial evidence pointing to his guilt. But the fact that the prosecution has failed to lead such evidence has this effect only, that the other evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused has to be very closely examined. "in case of Benguli (supra) a Bench of this Court held that absence of proof of motive puts the court on its guard to examine evidence with great care. Perusal of the F. I. R. shows that there was evident motive for the crime. The informant (P. W. 1) has stated in the F. I. R. that his uncle as the Ward Member had been taking leading part in the development work of the village for which all the villagers including the accused persons combined against him (P. W. 1's family) and since four days they had been ex-communicated and in the early morning of the date of occurrence there was quarrel over the issue thatching of the house and there after the occurrence took place. Thus, this is not a case of absence of motive for the commission of the crime. In any case, prosecution is not bound to prove motive of any offence inasmuch as motive is known only to the perpetrator of the crime and may not be known to others. It does not, therefore, follow that if motive is not proved, the evidence of any witnesses become automatically unreliable. ( 9 ) IT was next contended that there were many independent witnesses who had seen the occurrence but the prosecution has not examined them and it remained satisfied by merely examining P. Ws. 1, 2, and 3 who are admittedly partisan witnesses. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant draw our attention to the statement of P. W. 2 made in the cross-examination that Gunandhi Khatua, Ramesh Khatua, Hadibandhu and Govinda Mantri had seen the assault on her husband. Learned counsel submitted that non-examination of those witnesses throws doubt on the veracity of the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3. It is the consistent case of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 that the deceased was assaulted when he was sitting in his house to take his food. Learned counsel submitted that non-examination of those witnesses throws doubt on the veracity of the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3. It is the consistent case of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 that the deceased was assaulted when he was sitting in his house to take his food. Ordinarily presence of out-siders in the house of P. W. 2 was not expected but by closely examined the aforesaid statement off P. W. 2 it appears to us that what she meant by that statement was that those named persons had seen the injuries on the deceased. This will be evident if the entire paragraph 5 of the deposition in which the said statement occurs is closely persued. She has stated that she was standing when her husband was assaulted by appellant Bhikari with thenga and other accused persons were standing behind her. The three accused persons were standing three cubits away from her husband. On hearing her hullah, three persons of Tentulirangadi which is an adjoining village, came and saw the assault on her husband. Those persons were Gunanidhi Khatus, Ramesh Khatua, Hadibandbu and Govinda Mantri. It is clear from the evidence of P. W. 2 that her husband was assaulted by appellant Bhikari with thenga. After her husband was assaulted by appellant Bhikari with thenga, she raised hullah and on hearing of it, Gunanidhi Khatua, Ramesh Khatua, Hadibandbu and Govinda Mantri arrived and noticed injuries on the deceased. By reading the entire paragraph 5 of the deposition of P. W. 2, it cannot legitimately be inferred that those persons had seen Bhikari assaulting the deceased. What they had seen was the injuries on the deceased. As the incident had taken place inside the house, it is but natural that the inmates would be the best witness. No doubt, P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are respectively the son, widow and brother of the deceased. Law is now well settled that conviction can be sustained basing on the evidence of partisan witnesses. What the law requires is closer and thorough scrutiny of their evidence. We have carefully persued the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and are satisfied that their evidence is cogent, reliable and does not suffer from any serious infirmity. Law is now well settled that conviction can be sustained basing on the evidence of partisan witnesses. What the law requires is closer and thorough scrutiny of their evidence. We have carefully persued the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and are satisfied that their evidence is cogent, reliable and does not suffer from any serious infirmity. The presence of P. W. 2 cannot be doubted in view of the injuries sustained by her as deposed to by herself and we find its corroboration in the evidence of the doctor (P. W. 12 ). He had found three injuries on her person. They are (i) lacerated wound 2" x 3" x 1/4" over the right parietal bone (ii) bruise 2" x 2" over the forehead in the midline below the hair margin, and (iii) abrasion 3" x 2 1/2" over the left scapula. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel that independent witnesses had seen the occurrence who were not examined in course of the trial. ( 10 ) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that there was delay in the examination of P. W. 2 for which her evidence becomes tainted. It appears from the record that the Investigating Officer received requisition from the doctor (P. W. 12) of Tigiria government hospital that Nilamani (P. W. 2) and her husband Bauri (deceased) had been admitted in the hospital having received savere injuries on their persons. He contacted the concerned doctor from whom he could know both the injured were not in a condition to talk. P. W. 2 has stated that after receiving injuries on her person, she lost her senses and regained her sense in the hospital on the following day. The Investigating Officer (P. W. 11) has deposed that he tried to examine P. W. 2 but could not do due to her imblanced mind and he examined her on 9-6-1988. The explanation offered by the Investigating Officer cannot be out-right rejected. P. W. 2 having admittedly sustained injuries on her person, we cannot hold that she was not eye witness to the occurrence. There is, thus, no merit in the criticism that merely because there was delay in examining P. W. 2, her evidence should be doubted. The explanation offered by the Investigating Officer cannot be out-right rejected. P. W. 2 having admittedly sustained injuries on her person, we cannot hold that she was not eye witness to the occurrence. There is, thus, no merit in the criticism that merely because there was delay in examining P. W. 2, her evidence should be doubted. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel submitted that non-mention of the names of the assailants in the inquest report Ext. 3 is an important circumstance to throw doubt on the complicity of the appellants in the crime. We do not find any force in this submission. It is well settled that the proceedings for inquest under Section 174 Cr. P. C. have a very limited scope i. e. 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 is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P. C. The learned counsel also raised doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution case because there was delay in dispatching the F. I. R. to the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Athagarh. In this connection, learned counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 (1) Crimes-777 wherein it has been held that the forwarding of the occurrence report is indispensable and absolute and it has to he forwarded with earliest effect. Ext. 1 is the F. I. R. It was received at the police station on the date of occurrence (28-5-1988) at 11. 30 a. m. It appears from the endorsement made therein that it was despatched to the Magistrate on the same day but was placed before the learned Magistrate on 30-5-1988. The ratio of Arjun Marik (supra) is not at all applicable to the case at hand inasmuch as the F. I. R. in the present case was promptly forwarded on the same day to the learned Magistrate which was, however, placed before him one day after its despatch. We, therefore, do not find any lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer in the matter. We, therefore, do not find any lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer in the matter. In Pala Singh v. State of Punjab, A. I. R. 1972 S. C. 2679, it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows at page 62 of Cri LJ :"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 respite of the report by the Magistrate concerned it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable. " (emphasis supplied) ( 12 ) LET us examine the defence plea. D. W. 1 stated that the deceased accompanied by his family members came to his house and asked him to thatch his house. When he declined to do so, the deceased abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him by thenga. He (D. W. 1) snatched the thenga from his hand and began whirling it as a result, the thenga struck the head of the deceased. In the cross-examination, he admitted that for the first time he disclosed the incident in court. It was brought out in his cross-examination that he whirled the thenga standing on his verandah, and the height of the eve of the thatch would be 7 to 8 cubits from the ground and the height of the verandah would be 7 to 8 cubits from the ground. In the circumstances, it is not believable as to how he could whirle a thenga. His further version that he did not see any blood lying there nor he could be able to say the places of injuries sustained by the deceased indicates that his story of whirling the thenga which struck the deceased is an after-thought and otherwise not believable. ( 13 ) NO spereate argument was advanced on behalf of the appellants Pramod and Bhagirathi. ( 14 ) IN the ultimate analysis, we do not find any merit in both the appeals which are hereby dismissed. ( 15 ) S. CHATTERJI, J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed. .