Arun B. Saharya ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the State against acquittal of the sole respondent Jagan Nath by a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 31st of May 1979. in a case under Sections 302/307/34 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE charge against Jagan Nath was that on 9th of January 1978 at about 9. 30 P. M. at shop No. 4, Parwana Road within the jurisdiction of P. S. Gandhi Nagar, in furtherance of his common intention with Om Parkash alias Som Nath alias Somi, who was declared Proclaimed Offender, committed murder of Lal Chand and Vasudev, and inflicted injuries with sharp object to Prem Wati with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act she had died he would have been guilty of murder. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, accused Jagan Nath was residing along with his family, including his wife Shanti, daughter Neelam and brother Om Prakash was residing in house No. 15, Brijpuri Extension, Khureji, Delhi. At the back of his house, Vasudev deceased, a plumber, with his wife Prem Wati (P. W. 3), daughter Maya Devi (P. W. 2), Lal Chand deceased and Vijay Kumar (P. W. 11), brothers of Prem Wati were residing, in the premises described by some witnesses as house and by others as shop No. 4, on Parwana Road. As per the FIR Ex. Public Witness-15/b, on 28. 12. 1977 a quarrel took place between Neelam and Maya Devi (P. W. 2 ). Prem Wati (P. W. 3) intervened and slapped Neelam. Jagan Nath accused and Vasudev joined the brawl. Jagan Nath fell down. His left hand was fractured. Vasudev also received injuries. Both of them had to be taken to the hospital for treatment. A few days thereafter, on 9. 1. 1978 Vasudev, Prem Wati, Maya Devi, Lal Chand and Vijay Kumar had retired for sleeping inside the shop. Shutter of the shop was closed. At about 9. 30 P. M. , someone knocked from outside. Prem Wati enquired as to who was outside. A hand pump was to be repaired, was the reply. Prem Wati lighted a lamp and opened the shutter. She noticed Jagan Nath and his brother Om Prakash standing near the shutter and two other persons were also there on the road in front of the shop. Prem Wati enquired as to who was outside. A hand pump was to be repaired, was the reply. Prem Wati lighted a lamp and opened the shutter. She noticed Jagan Nath and his brother Om Prakash standing near the shutter and two other persons were also there on the road in front of the shop. Immediately, Om Parkash stabbed Prem Wati in her chest with a kirpan. She started running towards Parwana Road raising an alarm bachao BACHAO . Jagan Nath accused exhorted his brother Om Parkash to finish all those inside. Lal Chand deceased came near the shutter on hearing the alarm of Prem Wati. He too was stabbed by Om Parkash with the same kirpan. Lal Chand cried maar DIYA MAAR DIYA and fell down. Then, Vasudev came forward. Jagan Nath accused secured him and Om Parkash stabbed him a number of times. Vasudev also fell down near the shutter. When many persons from the mohalla came there, Jagan Nath accused, his brother Om Parkash and the two others escaped. ( 4 ) FURTHER, the case of the prosecution is that one Swadesh Parkash gave information from a public call telephone to Police Control Room that a quarrel was going on at Parwana Road. On this information being flashed to Police Post Krishan Nagar, Sl Amar Singh (P. W. 16) and constable Satbir Singh (Public Witness-14) reached the spot and found Prem Wati, Vasudev and Lal Chand lying in injured condition. Sl Amar Singh sent the three injured persons with constable Satbir Singh to J. P. N. Hospital and himself stayed back at the spot. In the meantime, S. I. Badlu Ram (P. W. 21) along with constable Dalu Ram, who were on patrol duty in the area reached the spot. Vijay Kumar (P. W. 11) met them and made a statement, which was recorded as the Rukka Ext. DB and sent to the Police Station vide endorsement Ext. Public Witness15/a at 10. 45 P. M. Consequently, F. I. R. No. 44 (Ext. Public Witness15/b) was recorded at 11. 15 P. M. ( 5 ) LAL Chand was declared brought dead at the hospital at 10. 30 P. M. Later, S. I. Badlu Ram (P. W. 21) reached there and collected the M. L. Cs for Vasudev and Prem Wati Ext. P. W. 23/b and Ext. P. W. 23/f respectively. ( 6 ) ON 10. 1. 15 P. M. ( 5 ) LAL Chand was declared brought dead at the hospital at 10. 30 P. M. Later, S. I. Badlu Ram (P. W. 21) reached there and collected the M. L. Cs for Vasudev and Prem Wati Ext. P. W. 23/b and Ext. P. W. 23/f respectively. ( 6 ) ON 10. 1. 1978, investigation of the case was taken up by S. I. Bhagwant Singh (P. W. 24 ). He prepared inquest report Ext. P. W. 24/a and sent the body of Lal Chand for post mortem. Dr. Bishnu Kumar (P. W. 12) conducted the post mortem examination at 12. 15 noon and submitted the report Ext. P. W. 12/a. It was opined that death of Lal Chand was due to haemorrhage and shock consequent upon stab wound recorded as injury No. 1 caused by a sharp double edged penetrated weapon injuring the lung and liver and that the same was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Jagan Nath accused was arrested in the evening on the same day. ( 7 ) ON 11. 1. 1978, statement of Prem Wati (P. W. 3) was recorded, after she was declared fit. Vasudev also died in the hospital at 10. 30 P. M. S. I. Bhagwant Singh (P. W. 24) prepared his inquest report Ext. P. W. 24/b and sent the dead body for post mortem vide application Ext. P. W. 24/e. Dr. Bishnu Kumar (P. W. 12) conducted the post mortem on 12th of January 1978. He opined that injuries No. 4,5 and 7, namely an incised punctured wound, seen oblique, in the epigastric region of the front of abdomen, an incised punctured wound on the left lower front part of chest and an incised punctured wound on the left outer surface of chest in mid axillary line over 10th inter coastal space, were ante mortem, caused by some sharp double edged weapon, and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature individually and collectively. The post mortem report is Ext. P. W. 12/d. ( 8 ) EFFORTS were made to apprehend Som Nath accused but in vain. He was, therefore, declared proclaimed offender and the case against Jagan Nath alone was put up for trial. The post mortem report is Ext. P. W. 12/d. ( 8 ) EFFORTS were made to apprehend Som Nath accused but in vain. He was, therefore, declared proclaimed offender and the case against Jagan Nath alone was put up for trial. The prosecution produced, among others, three witnesses, namely Maya Devi, Public Witness-2, Prem Wati Public Witness-3, and Vijay Kumar Public Witness-11, who claimed to have seen the occurrence. ( 9 ) JAGAN Nath accused admitted in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr. P. C. that Vasudev used to reside with his wife Prem Wati, daughter Maya Devi in premises No. 4, Parwana Road but did not know if Vijay Kumar (P. W. 11) also used to reside with them or not. He also admitted that he along with his wife and children was residing in the same mohalla. He denied that a quarrel took place between his children and the children of Vasudev on account of which his relations with them were not cordial. He denied all the other facts that were put to him on the basis of the prosecution story. He specifically denied having exhorted his brother Som Nath to kill anybody or that Som Nath stabbed Prem Wati. He also denied having caught Vasudev while Som Nath stabbed him. He denied that Lal Chand received injuries at his hands. He also denied having exhorted Som Nath that Maya Devi (P. W. 2) be taken away and that he along with his brother Som Nath and two others ran away from the spot. He said that he did not know about the injured being taken to the hospital. He denied that Sl Bhagwant Singh (P. W. 24) arrested him on 10. 1. 1978 and claimed that in fact he was taken from his house at night between 9th and 10th of January 1978 and was kept at Police Station Gandhi Nagar. He stated that he had been falsely implicated and the witnesses had made false statements in the case. ( 10 ) IN the impugned judgment, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has discussed in great detail the ocular and documentary evidence on record regarding the alleged motive, the manner and time of recording of the F. I. R. , as well as the testimony of Maya Devi (P. W. 2), Prem Wati (P. W. 3) and Vijay Kumar (P. W. 11 ). Sessions Judge has discussed in great detail the ocular and documentary evidence on record regarding the alleged motive, the manner and time of recording of the F. I. R. , as well as the testimony of Maya Devi (P. W. 2), Prem Wati (P. W. 3) and Vijay Kumar (P. W. 11 ). He found that the evidence on record was not sufficient to prove motive for Jagan Nath to commit the alleged crime. At the same time, the learned trial Judge has clarified that absence of sufficient evidence regarding motive would not have any bearing on the final decision of the case as the prosecution had relied upon oral evidence. He also felt that recording of the F. I. R. on 9. 1. 1978 itself at 11. 50 P. M. appeared to be suspicious and the possibility of the F. I. R. being actually recorded in the morning on 10. 1. 1978 could not be ruled out, particularly when the special report regarding the F. I. R. was not promptly sent to the Illaqa Magistrate and file of the Illaqa Magistrate showed that the F. I. R. was received in Court only on 13. 1. 1978. Moreover, Maya Devi (P. W. 2) and Vijay Kumar (P. W. 11) had stated that Lal Chand died at the spot, but the F. I. R. was registered only under section 307 I. P. C. It is pointed out that Vijay Kumar (P. W. 11) had denied having made any statement, as recorded in the Rukka Ext. DB, about the quarrel between Maya Devi (P. W. 2) and Neelam, and Prem Wati (P. W. 3) having slapped Neelam, which led to a fight between Jagan Nath and Vasudev on 28. 12. 1977. These circumstances, in his opinion, cast a serious doubt upon the prosecution story. The learned Judge also found that there were discrepancies and contradictions in evidence on record with regard to certain material aspects of the case, i. e. one hand of Jagan Nath accused being in plaster, the manner and the position in which he secured Vasudev, and the place and position in which Vijay Kumar (P. W. 11) hid himself, in a corner as stated in the Rukka Ext. DB, or under a quilt as deposed by him in Court. DB, or under a quilt as deposed by him in Court. He has also noted improvements made by Prem Wati (P. W. 3) and Vijay Kumar (P. W. 11) in their respective statements with regard to the alleged exhortation by Jagan Nath accused that Prem Wati (P. W. 3) be taken away. Further, in view of the testimony of Prem Wati (P. W. 3), it was found that prosecution had not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jagan Nath accused was present alongwith Som Nath or that he participated in the commission of the offence. In these circumstances, the learned trial court has given to Jagan Nath accused benefit of doubt and held that he cannot be convicted for the offences for which he was charged. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has taken us through the oral as well as documentary evidence on record in great detail and has contended that the findings of the learned trial court in respect of motive, the F. I. R. being ante dated, and the evidence regarding involvement of Jagan Nath accused in the commission of the crime, are all wrong. ( 12 ) IT would be appropriate, before we proceed to deal with the case on merits, to advert to the well established principles that should be followed in a case of appeal against acquittal. In Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another vs. State of Maharashtra, A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 135 the Supreme Court has laid the principle that where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal. In other words, if the main grounds on which the Court below has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the acquittal. In Tota Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, 1987 Criminal Law Journal 974 = AIR 1987 S. C. 1083, the same principle has been reiterated in the following terms :- "this Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous. " ( 13 ) MOTIVE or the lack of it is hardly of any consequence as the prosecution has relied upon ocular evidence. Nevertheless, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged the finding that there is no reliable evidence about the alleged quarrel between Neelam daughter of Jagan Nath accused and Maya Devi, daughter of Vas udev deceased on 28th of December 1977. The learned trial court has. based its conclusion on this aspect on various grounds, namely, that Maya Devi (P. W. 2) had deposed that the quarrel took place one year before the incident and Prem Wati (P. W. 3) put it two years prior to the incident, whereas the case of the prosecution was that the quarrel had taken place just a fortnight before the incident; that there was material difference in the version of the quarrel stated by P. W. 2 and P. W. 3; and that there is nothing on record to show that any such incident was reported to the police. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to find any fault with the first two reasons, and she has challenged the finding of the learned trial court only in respect of the last mentioned ground. She has urged that the finding thatthere is nothing on record to show that any quarrel before the incident was reported to the police is incorrect, and that sufficient information aboutthe quarrel is borne out from documents Ext. She has urged that the finding thatthere is nothing on record to show that any quarrel before the incident was reported to the police is incorrect, and that sufficient information aboutthe quarrel is borne out from documents Ext. Public Witness18/a, Public Witness18/b, Public Witness18/c and Public Witness22/a. ( 14 ) ASI Mohan Singh (P. W. I 8) has deposed about the combined effect of the documents Ext. Public Witness18/a, Public Witness18/b and Public Witness18/c. He has stated that on 23rd of December 1977, he was posted at Police Post Shakarpur under jurisdiction of Police Station Gandhi Nagar. Daily Diary entries No. 9 and 13 were given to him for enquiry. Ext. P. W. I 8/a and P. W. I 8/b are copies of the said Daily Diary entries. Accordingly, he went to J. P. N. Hospital. On return, he made entry No. 25 in the Daily Diary Register, a copy of which is Ext. P. W. 18/c. All of these three entries recorded in the Roznamcha, maintained at Police Post Shakarpur, are dated 23/24. 12. 77. The first one records information received on telephone from constable Balbir Singh (P. W. 5) from J. P. N. Hospital that Jagan Nath having been injured in a quarrel at Parwana Road, Khureji had been admitted in the hospital and some officers may be sent for taking proper action. The next entry records similar information about Vasudev. On receipt of the information contained in these two entries, ASI Mohan Singh (P. W. 18) stated that he was sent for enquiry. On return, he made an entry in the Daily Diary Register Ext. P. W. 18/c. A perusal of this entry shows that Jagan Nath had made a statement, which was recorded, to the effect that relations between the members of his family and the family of Vasudev had recently become strained "on account of money dealings" and that day, at about 7 A. M. when he had come out of his house, Vasudev and his wife Prem Wati and brother-in-law beat him up with a pipe and he had suffered injuries on his arm. Two of the important aspects arising out of this D. D. entry are, firstly, that Jagan Nath accused had made a statement, which was recorded by ASI Mohan Singh (P. W. 18), and, secondly, that the quarrel that took place between the two families was on account of some money dealings, whereas the date and subject matter of the quarrel, deposed by Maya Devi (P. W. 2) and Prem Wati (P. W. 3), were entirely different, and Prem Wati (P. W. 3) had gone to the extent of deposing that no quarrel took place between Jagan Nath and Vasudev. Be that as it may, what is more important is that the statement of Jagan Nath about the said quarrel, stated to have been recorded by Mohan Singh (P. W. I 8), has neither been produced nor proved on record. ( 15 ) THEN, Ext. P. W. 22/a is merely a copy of F. I. R. No. 322, which was recorded at Police Station Gandhi Nagar on receiptof "a writing prepared and sent by ASI Mohan Singh, Police Post Shakarpur on the basis of the statement made by Sh. Jagan Nath. " The F. I. R. recorded in the prescribed form, as usual, purports to reproduce the statement of Jagan Nath, commonly known as the "rukka" which was recorded by ASI Mohan Singh on 23. 12. 1977. The rukka signed by Jagan Nath has not been produced. In the absence of the rukka, namely, the statement made and signed by Jagan Nath, it cannot be said that F. I. R. No. 322 in respect of the incident of 23. 12. 1977 stands duly proved. In any event, the quarrel is said to have taken place on 23. 12. 1977 at 7 A. M. but the date and hour when the report was registered is stated to be 1. 30 P. M. on 20. 2. 1978, much after the alleged murder on 9. 1. 1978. Ext. Public Witness22/a has, therefore, to be discounted as an afterthought. ( 16 ) FURTHERMORE, the incident of 23/24. 12. 1977 which is subject matter of the above discussed documents, is different from the alleged quarrel on 28. 12. 1977 that was sought to be set up as the motive for the murders in this case. 1. 1978. Ext. Public Witness22/a has, therefore, to be discounted as an afterthought. ( 16 ) FURTHERMORE, the incident of 23/24. 12. 1977 which is subject matter of the above discussed documents, is different from the alleged quarrel on 28. 12. 1977 that was sought to be set up as the motive for the murders in this case. ( 17 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the learned trial court was perfectly justified in excluding from consideration the series of documents Ext. Public Witness18/ A, Public Witness18/b, Public Witness18/c and Public Witness22/a, and holding that there is no cogent evidence on record to show that the alleged quarrel on 28. 12. 1977, which was sought to be set up as the motive, was even reported to the police. ( 18 ) NEXT, with regard to the possibility of F. I. R. No. 44 Ext. P. W. 15/b being ante dated and lodged to involve Jagan Nath, the learned trial court has relied upon four factors in the impugned judgment. Firstly, Vijay Kumar (P. W. 11) deposed categorically that he was taken by the police from the place of occurrence to the Police Station, from there to the hospital and back to the police station, where he was kept for the night; and that the police did not ask him any thing during the night; and that his statement Ext. DB was recorded by the police, it was read over to him, and his thumb impression was got affixed on the same, at the police station in the morning after sun rise on 10. 1. 1978. He denied having made any statement, as recorded in great detail in the Rukka Ext. DB and the F. I. R. Ext. Public Witness15/b, that on 28. 12. 1977 Maya Devi had a quarrel with Neelam daughter of Jagan Nath, that Prem Wati slapped Neelam, that Jagan Nath came to the shop of Vasudev and threw stones, out of which one hit Vasudev, and that Vasudev pushed Jagan Nath, on account of which Jagan Nath fell down and his left hand got fractured. Secondly, SI Rajinder Singh (P. W. 15), who was the Duty Officer at Police Station Gandhi Nagar on 9. 1. 1978, had deposed that he had made entry No. 24 in the Daily Diary Register regarding registration of F. I. R. No. 44 Ext. Secondly, SI Rajinder Singh (P. W. 15), who was the Duty Officer at Police Station Gandhi Nagar on 9. 1. 1978, had deposed that he had made entry No. 24 in the Daily Diary Register regarding registration of F. I. R. No. 44 Ext. P. W. 15/b but the Daily Diary Register containing the said entry had neither been produced nor proved on record and, therefore, the possibility of the brief facts not being contemporaneously recorded cannot be ruled out. Thirdly, Sl Rajinder Singh (P. W. 15) and Sl Badlu Ram (P. W. 21) had admitted that they did not send any special report to the Illaqa Magistrate promptly on registration of the said FIR Ext. P. W. 15/b and that copy of the FIR was received on the file of the Illaqa Magistrate only on 13. 1. 1978. Lastly, that statements made by Maya Devi (P. W. 2) and Vijay Kumar (P. W. 11) clearly show that Lal Chand had died at the spot. In spite of this fact, the case was registered only under Section 307 IPC, for reasons best known to the investigating officer, for which no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming. ( 19 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant was unable to find any fault with the first three reasons and restricted the challenge, at the time of hearing, only to the last ground, namely, registration of the case under section 307 IPC. The submissions made by her even on this ground do not carry conviction. ( 20 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended that the incident took place at 9. 30 P. M. Statement of Vijay Kumar (P. W. 11) was recorded in the form of a rukka Ext. DB and it was forwarded with endorsement Ext. Public Witness15/a to the Police Station at 10. 45 PM and F. I. R. No. 44 Ext. Public Witness15/b was registered in the prescribed form at the Police Station at 11. 15 PM, on the basis of information, originally given by Vijay Kumar that Prem Wati, Vasudev and Lal Chand had been removed to the hospital in injured condition. This is the reason why the case was initially registered only under section 307/34 I. P. C. vide Ext. 15 PM, on the basis of information, originally given by Vijay Kumar that Prem Wati, Vasudev and Lal Chand had been removed to the hospital in injured condition. This is the reason why the case was initially registered only under section 307/34 I. P. C. vide Ext. P. W. 15/b and the same was converted into a case of murder under section 302 I. P. C. , when information was received regarding the death of Lal Chand on the next day. This explanation, however, does not stand. the test of closer scrutiny on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record. As already discussed earlier, Vijay Kumar (P. W. 11) has deposed that his statement Ext. DB was recorded only in the morning after sun rise on the next day. He stated in his examination-in-chief that Lal Chand died in the police van. Later, in cross- examination he categorically stated that at about 11. 30 P. M. the police had taken him to the hospital where he came to know about the death of his brother Lal Chand. Maya Devi (P. W. 2) has specifically deposed in her examination-in-chief that Lal Chand had died on the spot itself. Moreover, Bhagwan Dass (P. W. 23), Record Clerk from J. P. N. Hospital has proved the medical report in respect of Lal Chand, which is recorded in the hand of Dr. C. Raman. Ext. P. W. 23/a. It bears the date 9. 1. 78 and the time 10. 30 P. M. and distinctly records the fact that Lal Chand was brought by constable Satbir Singh and that he was "brought dead to casualty". Thus, the oral and the documentary evidence on record firmly establishes the fact that it was undoubtedly known by 10. 30 P. M. , much before registration of the formal F. I. R. Ext. P. W. 15/b that Lal Chand had already died. There is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming for registration of the case initially under section 307 and not under section 302 I. . P. C. In any event, this is only one of the reasons in support of the finding that the actual recording of the F. I. R. Ex. P. W. 15/b at 11. There is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming for registration of the case initially under section 307 and not under section 302 I. . P. C. In any event, this is only one of the reasons in support of the finding that the actual recording of the F. I. R. Ex. P. W. 15/b at 11. 50 P. M. is heavily tainted with suspicion and, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the possibility of the same being ante dated and ante timed can not be ruled out. ( 21 ) IN Balaka Singh and others vs. The State of Punjab, 1975 Cr. L. J. 1734 = AIR 1975 S. C: 1962, it was held that if the FIR itself was not written at the stated time, then the F. I. R. looses its authenticity. In the case of Gabriel. 1977cr. L. J. 135, the value of the safeguard requiring immediate despatch of the FIR without any delay to the concerned Magistrate was emphasised. It was held that it was imperative that the first information report should be despatched immediately without any delay by the investigating officers to the Judicial Magistrates, that on receipt of the said documents the Magistrates should initial the same, noting therein the time and date of the receipt of the said important documents and that this would provide the only judicial safeguard against any subsequent fabrication of the documents in grave crimes. There is no doubt that delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment, which is a creature of afterthought. On account of the delay, the vital and valuable piece of evidence, viz. , the first information report, not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but also danger creeps in by the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story, as a result of deliberation and consultation. If any delay occurred, the prosecution must explain it by adducing satisfactory and acceptable evidence. If no explanation is forthcoming, then it creates a doubt in the minds of Judicial Officers as to the genuineness of the first information report. ( 22 ) THE law on this subject has also been stated in the judgments of this Court in Mohd. Shafi vs. State, 37 (1989) Delhi Law Times 406 and Jagjit Singh vs. State, 1990 (2) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 197 (H. C ). ( 22 ) THE law on this subject has also been stated in the judgments of this Court in Mohd. Shafi vs. State, 37 (1989) Delhi Law Times 406 and Jagjit Singh vs. State, 1990 (2) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 197 (H. C ). In State vs. Khem Chand, 1993 Journal of Criminal Cases 490, relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 S. C. 501, it was observed as under:- "the First Information Report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the FIR can hardly be over estimated from the stand point of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and part played by them as well as the name of the eye witnesses present at the scene of the occurrence. The delay in lodging the First Information Report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account ofthe concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that delay in lodging of the First Information Report should be satisfactorily explained". ( 23 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case, keeping in view the discrepancies in the testimony of the various witnesses, particularly the eye witnesses P. W. 2, P. W. 3 and P. W. 11, the possibility of exaggerated account of the actual events as a result of deliberation and consultation preceding the actual registration ofthe FIR Ext. P. W. 15/b cannot be ruled out. ( 24 ) NOW, let us take up for consideration the ocular evidence in the case. P. W. 15/b cannot be ruled out. ( 24 ) NOW, let us take up for consideration the ocular evidence in the case. Jagan Nath accused Is sought to be fastened with joint liability for commission of the crime on the basis of common intention manifested by his alleged involvement by exhorting Om Parkash to kill all those present there and to take away Vasudev s daughter Maya Devi and also by securing Vasudev while injuries on the person of all the victims are alleged to have been inflicted by om Parkash. Perusal of the statements made by Maya Devi (P. W. 2), Prem Wati (P. W. 3) and Vijay Kumar (P. W. 11) cast a thick shadow of doubt, not only on the sequence of events, subject and content of the exhortation alleged to have been given by Jagan Nath accused, and the manner in which he is alleged to have secured Vasudev, but also on the very presence of Jagan Nath on the scene and participation in the commission of the crime: ( 25 ) MAYA Devi Public Witness2 deposed in her examination-in-chief that on 9. 1. 1978 at about 9. 15 PM when shutters were closed she alongwith other members ofthe family was present in the house. She and her mother were listening to a programme on radio. Someone knocked at the door from outside. Her mother asked who was there. A hand pump was to be installed, was the response her mother retorted, that was not the time for work. The person outside requested that address may be noted at which the handpump was to be installed as he had to go out somewhere. Her mother opened the shutter. Jagan Nath accused and his brother Soma were seen standing outside and two more persons were standing on the road. Accused Jagan Nath called upon his brother to kill everybody present inside. Soma dashed in first. Her mother quizzed where he was going. Soma stabbed her in the chest. Jagan Nath accused surged ahead, caught hold of her father Vasudev, and exhorted his brother to kill everybody present there. While he was holding her father, Soma stabbed him a number of times. Her maternal uncle Lal Chand, who tried to rescue Vasudev, was stabbed by Jagan Nath accused. Thereafter, Jagan Nath again caught hold of Vasudev and he was further stabbed by Soma. While he was holding her father, Soma stabbed him a number of times. Her maternal uncle Lal Chand, who tried to rescue Vasudev, was stabbed by Jagan Nath accused. Thereafter, Jagan Nath again caught hold of Vasudev and he was further stabbed by Soma. She herself came forward and Jagan Nath accused gave her a push on account of which she struck against a wall. Jagan Nath accused threatened that he would have her father killed and carry her away. Lal Chand died on the spot. Vasudev remained in hospital for two days and died there. Her mother also remained in the hospital. Her parents and maternal uncle had collapsed on the spot. Jagan Nath accused and his brother fled away. In cross- examination she stated that knife injuries were inflicted on her parents and uncle inside the house. When Jagan Nath accused and his brother were inflicting knife injuries she and other members of her family had raised hue and cry but no one from the mohalla came to their rescue inside the house. She could neither recognise nor give description of the other two persons who were standing outside on the road on account of darkness. Her father Vasudev struggled to get himself freed but he was firmly secured by Jagan Nath accused with one hand around his waist. The other hand of Jagan Nath was not under plaster at that time. Police did not reach the place of occurrence in her presence. She did not know who placed the body of Lal Chand in the van. She claimed that after the occurrence she went away to the house of her mother s sister in the nearby Anarkali Colony at about 9. 30 PM. , and that she went running all the way and it took her about 10 minutes to reach there. She categorically maintained that her statement was recorded by the police at the police station when she went there with Kanhya Lal, husband of her mother s sister, on the next day at about 10 A. M. She testified that her own clothes got smeared with blood and that the police had seen her wearing the blood stained clothes at the time when she went to the police station and her statement was recorded. She, however, did not suggest that her blood stained clothes be taken into possession, nor did the police officers ask her to give the same. She deposed that she had stated before the police that Jagan Nath gave her a push as a result of which she struck against the wall. She was confronted with her statement Ext. DA where it was not so recorded. She also reiterated that she had stated to the police that Jagan Nath accused was saying that he would kill her father and take her away. Again, she was confronted with her statement and it was found that it was not so recorded. She also stated that Vijay Kumar Public Witness11 tried to rescue her mother, father and uncle and that blood was flowing on the floor of the house. Of course, she denied the suggestion that she was not present at the place of occurrence and that she was actually at the house of her mother s sister and had come to know about the incident only in the morning on the next date. ( 26 ) PREM Wati (P. W. 3) was herself injured. Her presence at the spot at the time of occurrence is unquestionable. She is the one who responded to the knock at the door, had a dialogue with the caller at that evil hour, and had the first encounter with the intruders who had killed her husband Vasudev and brother Lal Chand. Jagan Nath was no stranger. He was living at the back of her residence. She knew him She had seen four persons when she opened up the shutter. In the witness box, she testified that she could identify only Som Nath and no one else. The public prosecutor sought permission and was allowed to cross-examine her. She resolutely refuted the suggestions that on opening the shutter she had seen Jagan Nath, that he had called upon Som Nath to kill anyone, and that he had secured her husband Vasudev who was stabbed by Som Nath. Her testimony does not incriminate Jagan Nath accused in any way. ( 27 ) VIJAY Kumar Public Witness 11 testified that on the fateful day at about 9 PM he was sleeping in the house of his brother-in-law Vasudev. Lal Chand, Prem Wati and Maya Devi were also sleeping. Her testimony does not incriminate Jagan Nath accused in any way. ( 27 ) VIJAY Kumar Public Witness 11 testified that on the fateful day at about 9 PM he was sleeping in the house of his brother-in-law Vasudev. Lal Chand, Prem Wati and Maya Devi were also sleeping. He knew Jagan Nath accused, who used to reside alongwith his wife, children and brother Somi behind the house of Vasudev. In his examination-in-chief he was asked a specific question: "do you know anything about any quarrel of Maya Devi with somebody". His answer was "no. " So much for the alleged motive, which was introduced in the FIR Ex. Public Witness-15/b, on the basis of initial statement of this very person recorded in the form of Rukka Ex. DB, already discussed above. With regard to the day of occurrence, despite first saying that he was sleeping, he stated that at about 9. 15 P. M. , the shutter was closed when someone knocked at the door. He narrated the entire dialogue that took place between the person outside and Prem Wati. He went on to add that the other inmates were not inclined to open the shutter but Prem Wati opened it. Further, he deposed that immediately after the shutter was opened, Somi inflicted injury on Prem Wati s chest with a Kirpan. She fell down. Thereafter, his brother-in-law Vasudev got up. Jagan Nath accused caught hold of him and Somi inflicted a blow with the Kirpan. Then, Lal Chand surged ahead. He too received injury at the hands of Somi. Jagan Nath accused called out that everybody in the house should be killed and Maya Devi be lifted away. Jagan Nath accused gave this call after Prem Wati, Vasudev and Lal Chand had fallen down. The assailants, however, decamped after the assault. Police came to the spot. Lal Chand, Vasudev and Prem Wati were removed to hospital in the police van. Police took him also along and kept him throughout the night, but did not ask him anything. Next morning, the police recorded his statement and he affixed his thumb impression on the statement after it was read over to him as he was illiterate. Lal Chand, Vasudev and Prem Wati were removed to hospital in the police van. Police took him also along and kept him throughout the night, but did not ask him anything. Next morning, the police recorded his statement and he affixed his thumb impression on the statement after it was read over to him as he was illiterate. In cross-examination, he categorically stated that immediately after arrival on the spot the police took him away, he remained with the police till the next day and that his thumb impression was affixed on the Rukka Ex. DB after sunrise in the morning. He asserted that Maya Devi Public Witness2 was present at the spot at the time when the police reached there, and that he had instructed her to go away to the house of her mother s sister when he was asked by the police personnel to accompany them. Further, he testified that he was taken by the police to the hospital where he came to know about the death of his brother at about 11. 30 P. M. He accepted as correct the suggestion that there was a fracture in the arm of Jagan Nath accused at the time of the incident. He revealed that he had covered himself up with a guilt when Somi inflicted injury on his sister Prem Wati, but he claimed that he continued to see all that was going on. He denied having stated to the police that Prem Wati started running towards Parwana Road while raising alarm BACHAO BACHAO after getting Kirpan injury on her chest. He was confronted with portion A to A of Ext. DB where it was so recorded. He stated that his clothes and hands got stained with blood while placing the injured in the police van. The police had seen his blood stained clothes but they did not take them into possession. He specifically stated that the clothes of Maya Devi Public Witness2 did not get blood stains. With regard to the motive, he confirmed in cross-examination that he did not know anything about any earlier incident, and that he did not tell the police about any such incident. He testified:" I did not state to the police that on 28. 12. He specifically stated that the clothes of Maya Devi Public Witness2 did not get blood stains. With regard to the motive, he confirmed in cross-examination that he did not know anything about any earlier incident, and that he did not tell the police about any such incident. He testified:" I did not state to the police that on 28. 12. 1977 Maya Devi aged about 16 years, daughter of my sister had a quarrel with Neelam, d/o Jagan Nath when my sister Prem Wati slapped Neelam or that Jagan Nath came to our shop and threw brick bats hitting Vasudev on his head or that Vasudev gave a push to Jagan Nath who fell down and his left arm was broken. " He was confronted with portion B to B of Ext. DB where it is so recorded. He also stated that Vasudev tried to free himself when Jagan Nath placed his arm around the neck of Vasudev from the front side and secured him, and that Jagan Nath had exhorted his brother to kill everybody after the victims had already suffered injuries and had fallen down. ( 28 ) GLARING contradictions on material aspects of the case i. e. the sequence of events, the exhortation, the role alleged to have been played by accused Jagan Nath, and the acts of omission and commission of the so called eye witnesses, are apparent from the above discussion. The learned trial court has dealt with various discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of the said three witnesses and has rightly come to a conclusion that it would be unsafe to place reliance upon the same. ( 29 ) MAYA Devi Public Witness2 deposed about the exhortation given by Jagan Nath to kill everybody, whereas she had said nothing about it in her previous statement under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. She even went Upto the extent of saying, contrary to the prosecution version, that Jagan Nath accused inflicted knife injuries on Lal Chand. Further, she claimed that the police did not come to the spot in her presence, that she was not in a position to tell who placed the injured persons in the police van, and that she had earlier gone away to the house of her mother s sister. Further, she claimed that the police did not come to the spot in her presence, that she was not in a position to tell who placed the injured persons in the police van, and that she had earlier gone away to the house of her mother s sister. But, Vijay Kumar Public Witness11 asserted that she was very much there and that she left the place, at his instance, after arrival of the police. Here, it is also pertinent to note that Sl. Badlu Ram Public Witness21 deposed that he had recorded the statement of Maya Devi on the spot at about 10. 30 to 10. 45 PM on the day of occurrence itself, whereas Maya Devi Public Witness2 maintained that her statement was recorded at the police station when she went there on the next day at 10 A. M. Moreover, she claimed that her clothes were blood stained. If it were so. that was crucial evidence to establish her presence at the time of occurrence but her clothes were not even taken into possession. She even claimed, as a part of the episode, that Jagan Nath accused gave her a push, and that she had mentioned this fact in her statement given to the police, but, it was found not to be so recorded. ( 30 ) SO far as Vijay Kumar Public Witness11 is concerned, introduction of the previous quarrel as the motive was attributed to him in the form of information given by him to the police, which was recorded in great detail in the Rukka Ext. DB and incorporated in the FIR Ex. Public Witness-15/b, In the witness box, however, he showed total ignorance about the alleged quarrel. In fact, he denied giving any such information to the police. He firmly maintained that he accompanied the police party from the place of occurrence to the police station and the hospital and back again to the police station, remained there overnight, that his statement Ex. DB was recorded and his thumb mark on it was taken only after sun rise next day in the morning at the police station, and that his statement was not recorded by the police on the spot on the day of occurrence. Further, in his statement Ext. DB was recorded and his thumb mark on it was taken only after sun rise next day in the morning at the police station, and that his statement was not recorded by the police on the spot on the day of occurrence. Further, in his statement Ext. DB he had stated that he hid himself in a corner in the house but he deposed in court that he hid himself underthe quilt. Yet, he claims to have witnessed and seen everything clearly despite the fact that it was night time, there was no electricity, and there was only dim light of a lamp at the time of occurrence. Furthermore, the sequence of events described by him is completely at variance with the version given by Maya Devi Public Witness2. The exhortation alleged to have been given by Jagan Nath accused only after the assault does not appeal to reason. He too claimed that his clothes were stained with blood. On this aspect what has been said earlier about the blood stained clothes of Maya Devi would apply with equal force here as well. ( 31 ) LAST but not the least, the testimony of Prem Wati Public Witness3 completely I exonerates Jagan Nath accused of the charge of murder of Vasudev and Lalchand, separately framed in respect of each of the deceased, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and even for the injury caused to herself that is punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. ( 32 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, we uphold findings of the learned trial court on all counts. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.