JUDGEMENT P. K. Bahri, J. :- Babu Lal-appellant has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated February 25, 1991 and vide subsequent order of even date, he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months on the first count and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months on the second count with the directions that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently. 2. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentences by filing the present appeal. The appellant could not engage any counsel. On our request Ms. Meenakshi Jain, Advocate, agreed to represent the appellant and we appointed her Amicus Curiae on State expense. We, with the assistance of Ms. Meenakshi Jain and counsel for the State, have gone through the record and at the outset we may say that Ms. Meenakshi Jain had done a commendable job in mustering the facts and analysing the evidence in order to persuade us to set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellant. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Babu Lal appellant was at the time of the occurrence running a tea-stall at the Tempo Stand Ajmeri Gate. Nathu (since deceased, brother of PW 3 Ram Kishan, had been working at the said Tempo Stand Ajmeri Gate for the last about 15-16 years and Nathu was not regularly visiting his family members and was staying even in the nights at the said Tempo Stand. Ram Kishan used to visit his brother to know about his welfare off and on at the Tempo Stand. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on October 24, 1984 at about 10 PM or so, Ram Kishan PW 3 had come to the said Tempo Stand in order to take his brother for Diwali celebration to his house and outside the Tempo Stand he met Baljit Singh PW 11, who had been selling eggs at that Tempo Stand. The case of the prosecution is that on October 24, 1984 at about 10 PM or so, Ram Kishan PW 3 had come to the said Tempo Stand in order to take his brother for Diwali celebration to his house and outside the Tempo Stand he met Baljit Singh PW 11, who had been selling eggs at that Tempo Stand. Both of them had moved inside the Tempo Stand when they heard the noise of quarrel and they saw Babu Lal-appellant giving a Pharsa blow on the person of Nathu and as Ram Kishan and Baljit came forward, the appellant made his escape along with one accomplice. They pursued them to some distance but could not manage to apprehend the assailant and they returned and found Nathu lying dead. It was mentioned that there was previous enmity between the appellant and Nathu with regard to the accounts pertaining to the tea shop of the appellant. 5. At about 10.30 PM some unknown person had given a telephone message to Police Control Room which was recorded by SI Mawasi Lal PW 13 to the effect that a quarrel was taking place at Tempo Stand Ajmeri Gate and this message was conveyed to Police Station Kamla Market which was recorded by the Duty Officer, namely, Head Constable Mushtaq in Daily Diary at serial No. 19A, copy of which is Ex.PW 17/A. Copy of the said Daily Diary entry was sent to SI Keshav Ram PW 17, who was present in the area on patrol duty, through Constable Kanwar Singh PW 10. On reaching the spot he found the dead body of Nathu lying on a wooden platform. (takhatposh) having an injury/cut mark on the right side of the neck and he met Ram Kishan at the spot and he recorded his statement Ex. PW 3/A on the basis of which the FIR was registered at Police Station Kamla Market at 12.05 AM during the intervening night of October 24/25, 1984, a copy of the same is Ex. PW 12/A. From the spot the Sub-Inspector took into possession six chappals, some of them blood stained, Exs. P1 to P6 vide memo Exs. PW 3/C and PW 3/D. A bottle containing liquor and certain pieces of glass were also lifted from the spot besides the bedding over which the dead body of Nathu was lying which comprised of white quilt Ex. P1 to P6 vide memo Exs. PW 3/C and PW 3/D. A bottle containing liquor and certain pieces of glass were also lifted from the spot besides the bedding over which the dead body of Nathu was lying which comprised of white quilt Ex. P8, three sheets Exs. P 10 to P 12 and one that Ex. P9. He prepared the inquest papers and had sent the dead body for post-mortem and PW 5 Dr. Bishnu Kumar performed the post-mortem on October 25, 1984 at about 12 Noon and he found the following injuries : Deep incised wound 9.8 x 4.3 cms transversely oblique on the right side front outer surface of neck in middle region, inner end being just to the left of mid-line and 5 cms above the sternal notch; this injury was 140 cms above right heel while its outer part was 144 cms above right heel. The margins of the injury were clean cut but irregular at places due to drying and underneath the sternal head-inner half of sternomastoid muscle was completely bisected and vessels below it were cut. Other neck muscles were also seen cut and showed bevelling in their upper part thereby showing the direction of the blow by sharp weapon from above, downwards and backwards obliquely. The right outer portion of the wound also showed a triangular area with bevelling of upper border and undermining of lower border and this triangular area measured 2.8 cms vertically and its base being 1.8 cms and blood effusion in plenty was present in the neck muscles and around. 6. Vide his medico legal report Ex.PW 5/A, the doctor opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and recent and they could be caused by a sharpedged weapon like phrase. In court he was shown the weapon of offence allegedly recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement of the appellant as Ex.P 13 and he opined that the said injury was possible on the body of the deceased by the said weapon Ex.P 13. He took into possession the clothes of the deceased and sample blood of deceased which were converted into sealed parcels and handed over to police constable Kanwar Singh who deposited the same in the Malkhana. At the spot the Investigating Officer had also recorded the statement of Baljit Singh and other witnesses. 7. He took into possession the clothes of the deceased and sample blood of deceased which were converted into sealed parcels and handed over to police constable Kanwar Singh who deposited the same in the Malkhana. At the spot the Investigating Officer had also recorded the statement of Baljit Singh and other witnesses. 7. The appellant was not available for being arrested till October 28, 1984, when on the pointing out by Ram Kishan and Khusi Ram PW 14 the appellant was arrested from the ISBT, Kashmere Gate and on his disclosure statement that he had kept concealed the pharsa between the wall and the peepal tree in Kamroop Devi Mandir Darya Ganj, Ansari Road and he could point out to the same and get it recovered, the said weapon of offence was recovered at his pointing out from the tree located in that temple. The same was taken into possession after being duly sealed as it was blood stained vide memo Ex. PW 13/K. 8. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who recorded the evidence, did not care to exhibit only the admissible portion of the disclosure statement pertaining to the concealment of the weapon of offence mentioned in Ex.PW 3/H but proceeded to exhibit whole of the statement which was confessional in nature which was not permissible. Only that portion of the disclosure statement which is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is required to be proved and exhibited in court and not the other portions of the confessional statement which normally police should not record but they usually do while recording the disclosure statement. 9. The case property was got sent to CFSL and the reports Exs. PW 17/D to F were received which indicated that the blood group of the deceased was 'O' and similar blood was found on the various articles seized at the spot and also on the clothes of the deceased and on the blade of the pharsa human blood was detected but group of the blood could not be ascertained. PW 17/D to F were received which indicated that the blood group of the deceased was 'O' and similar blood was found on the various articles seized at the spot and also on the clothes of the deceased and on the blade of the pharsa human blood was detected but group of the blood could not be ascertained. The appellant had pleaded innocence and had come out with the statement that on October 27, 1984, he was proclaiming that it was a blind murder and he being a poor person would not have been in a position to defend the case, so he might not be involved in this case and the police at that time arrested him. 10. The conviction of the appellant is based on the statement of PW 3, the real brother of the deceased, and corroboration has been sought from the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant. Baljit Singh, the other eye-witness, has turned hostile. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that statement of PW 1, if is read properly alongwith the statements of other witnesses, it would show that his statement bristles with contradictions which go to the root of the matter and the conduct of PW 3 was also not natural and in all probability it was a blind murder and he was not the eye-witness of the occurrence. It is also urged on behalf of the appellant that the weapon of offence had been planted on the appellant and was not recovered at the instance of the appellant. 12. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has contended that there is no reason for the court to disbelieve the sworn testimony of PW 3, the real brother of the deceased, who has no reason to falsely implicate the appellant for the murder of his real brother and allow the real culprit to go scot free. He has urged that the minor discrepancies have occurred in the statement of PW 3 which are normal as statement was recorded after considerable time and such discrepancies are bound to appear in statements of truthful witnesses as well. He has urged that the minor discrepancies have occurred in the statement of PW 3 which are normal as statement was recorded after considerable time and such discrepancies are bound to appear in statements of truthful witnesses as well. He has argued that the Additional Sessions Judge was fully justified in placing implicit reliance on the unimpeachable testimony of PW 3 in bringing home the offence to the appellant and there is no good reason for discarding the said testimony of PW 3. He has urged that in the present case the weapon of offence was got recovered at the instance of the appellant and there are two witnesses PW 3 and PW 14 who were joined while arresting the appellant and while making the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant and there is no reason to doubt their statements in this connection. 13. PW 3 Ram Kishan is the real brother of the deceased and he had given the version while narrating the facts which appears to be spontaneous version of the incident. He has given good reason for coming to the said Tempo Stand to ask his brother Nathu to come with him for performing Diwali Puja at his house. It was tried to be urged that in the previous year he had not come to invite him for Diwali Puja. The witness gave good explanation for the same by deposing that Nathu had, on his own, come for Diwali Puja the previous year. It must be remembered that it is only Ram Kishan who is married out of the three brothers. Nathu was unmarried and it is but natural that Ram Kishan would wish presence of Nathu on the happy occasion like Diwali at his house. So, there was nothing wrong or unusual in Ram Kishan coming to the Tempo Stand for taking Nathu to his house for Diwali Puja on that day. 14. It has been urged that in the FIR this witness had not referred to the part of the body on which allegedly appellant had struck the pharsa blow. Such omission in the FIR, in our view, would not make the testimony of the witness as false. It is not necessary that FIR should contain all the minute details of the occurrence. Such omission in the FIR, in our view, would not make the testimony of the witness as false. It is not necessary that FIR should contain all the minute details of the occurrence. It has been urged that instead of taking steps to get medical aid to his injured brother Nathu, Ram Kishan claims to have run after the assailant little caring for the survival of his brother and it has been urged that this being an unnatural conduct of a real brother should lead to an inference that he was not present at the time of the occurrence. We do not appreciate this contention. After all Ram Kishan on seeing his brother being assaulted with a phrase blow by the appellant could normally try to apprehend the assailant and after a few minutes of pursuing assailant when assailant had disappeared, he rushed back to the spot and by that time the dead body of Nathu had been placed on a bedding on a takhatposh. It is evident that such a conduct of the close relation cannot be considered to be unnatural so as to infer that he was not present at the time of the occurrence. It is to be emphasized that all proceedings have been carried out at the spot and on the recoveries effected at the spot and on the inquest papers prepared at the spot Ram Kishan had signed as witness. That would also ensure that at the time the police arrived at the spot Ram Kishan was very much available and it is on his statement that the FIR was registered. 15. It was sought to be urged that the version of the witness that he and Baljit Singh were entering from a side date of the said Tempo Stand when, in fact, in the map prepared by the Investigating Officer and the map prepared by the police draftsman, no such small gate has been shown to exist. In order to verify this fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has, in our opinion, wisely visited the place of occurrence and he has in his inspection report, which remains unchallenged, stated that there exists a side gate for entering the said Tempo Stand besides the main gate of that Tempo Stand. So, nothing turns on this point. 16. In order to verify this fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has, in our opinion, wisely visited the place of occurrence and he has in his inspection report, which remains unchallenged, stated that there exists a side gate for entering the said Tempo Stand besides the main gate of that Tempo Stand. So, nothing turns on this point. 16. It was then sought to be urged that according to the version given in the FIR it appears that the occurrence had taken place inside the Tempo Stand whereas in evidence given in court it is tried to be shown that the occurrence took place near the main gate of the Tempo Stand close to the shop of the appellant. We do not find any such discrepancy. Ram Kishan PW 3 has deposed that as he and Baljit Singh were entering the small gate they heard the commotion and they ran towards the place of occurrence i.e. near the shop of Babu Lal and when they were at a distance of about 8-10 paces, they saw appellant giving a blow with pharsa on the person of Nathu and then making his escape. 17. So, we do not find that the place of occurrence had been changed while giving evidence in Court by this witness or by other witnesses. The place of occurrence is also pin pointed from the lifting of the blood and other articles from the spot. It has been urged that the police had found at the place of occurrence half filled bottle of liquor and some broken pieces of glass and the same have not been linked with the details of the occurrence given by the eye witness Ram Kishan. 18. It must be emphasised that attention of Ram Kishan and Baljit was attracted towards the place of occurrence when they were entering the small gate on hearing a noise of quarrel coming from the place of occurrence. So, they are not witnesses to the whole of the occurrence which might have taken place before they reached near the place of occurrence and saw Babu Lal attacking Nathu with a 'pharsa'. Rather the witness, Ram Kishan, has not tried to embellish the story in order to give any false version of having witnessed the whole of the occurrence which may have resulted in breaking of some glass after some drinking bout taking place at the spot. 19. Rather the witness, Ram Kishan, has not tried to embellish the story in order to give any false version of having witnessed the whole of the occurrence which may have resulted in breaking of some glass after some drinking bout taking place at the spot. 19. It has been urged that there is some discrepancy in the testimony of Ram Kishan as to whether Babu Lal had assaulted Nathu when Nathu was standing or sitting on a bench. We do not think that this particular discrepancy which appears in the statement of Ram Kishan goes to the root of the matter. The testimony has been given by Ram Kishan in Court after about 15 months of the occurrence. So, such discrepancies on some immaterial points do appear in statements of even most truthful witnesses. It is to be emphasised that Ram Kishan is not a literate person so that he could narrate the facts without making any mistakes. 20. It was argued that PW-3 Ram Kishan could not have been present at the spot as he has not given any reason as to how Nathu came to be placed on a bedding and admittedly, the bedding and other articles were blood soaked and were recovered at the spot. It has already come in the statement of PW-3 and al in the FIR that Ram Kishan and Baljit had gone after the assailant in order to apprehend him and that had taken about 4/5 minutes and it is obvious that when they returned, they found the dead body of Nathu lying on a bedding on a bench. It is evident that some other persons, who might have collected at the spot, had put Nathu on a bedding before Ram Kishan and Baljit returned to the spot after having failed to apprehend the assailant. 21. It is, then, urged that Ram Kishan, in the F.I.R., had not given the details of the dispute that appellant was having with the deceased. It is well known principle of law that F.I.R. is not a document which must contain all the details and if all the details are not contained in the F.I.R. it cannot be inferred in law that the author of the F.I.R. was not aware of the details at the time he got recorded the F.I.R. 22. It is well known principle of law that F.I.R. is not a document which must contain all the details and if all the details are not contained in the F.I.R. it cannot be inferred in law that the author of the F.I.R. was not aware of the details at the time he got recorded the F.I.R. 22. The statement of Ram Kishan in Court that the appellant had gone to his native place for a few months and had handed over the possession of the shop to Nathu was not challenged in cross-examination. It is on account of the accounts of the shop of Babu Lal, when Babu Lal came back and took over the possession of the shop, that differences arose between the appellant and the deceased which ultimately culminated in murder of Nathu at the hands of the appellant. 23. Even the hostile witness, Baljit Singh, PW-11 had stated that the appellant had gone away somewhere and had given his shop to deceased Nathu for running in his absence about two years back prior to the occurrence and he also admitted that the appellant returned after 5/6 months and took back his shop. As far as Baljit Singh, PW-11, is concerned, for reasons best known to him, he had not supported the prosecution version. He even denied that he knew PW-3 Ram Kishan. According to him, he had only heard, soon after the occurrence when he reached there, that Babu Lal had run away after attacking Nathu and he claims to have informed the police. According to him, even the 'Pharsa' had been taken into possession by the police lying under a tempo. He has been confronted with his statement given to the police. Ex. PW-11/A to various portions but he denied having given such version. He, of course, admitted that various articles and the blood were lifted in his presence by the police and he had signed the recovery memos, Ex.PW-3/B to PW-3/F. 24. He has been confronted with his statement given to the police. Ex. PW-11/A to various portions but he denied having given such version. He, of course, admitted that various articles and the blood were lifted in his presence by the police and he had signed the recovery memos, Ex.PW-3/B to PW-3/F. 24. Referring to the statement of PW-14, Khushi Ram, who was having his tempos being plied by Nathu and Babu Lal at some point of time and he is also member of Delhi Transport Union having its office at Ajmeri Gate, it has been urged that although Khushi Ram came to the spot soon after learning about the occurrence, yet he had not deposed that he had found Ram Kishan, PW-3 present at the spot, although he refers to the police being present. 25. It is pertinent to mention that no question has been put to him either in examination-in-chief or in cross-examination with regard to his having noticed PW-3, Ram Kishan, present at the spot or not soon after he came to the spot. So, it cannot be said that there has come about a serious discrepancy in the prosecution version casting any doubt on the question of Ram Kishan being eye witness of the occurrence. 26. Now, coming to the recovery of the weapon of offence, the investigating officer, Khushi Ram and Ram Kishan have deposed about the arrest of the appellant on being pointed out by Ram Kishan and thereafter he being interrogated and then he having got recovered the 'pharsa' from the hollow place of the tree near the temple. It has been urged that the Pujari of that temple, who was examined as DW-1, although was claimed to have been present at the time of the alleged recovery, yet he was not made a witness to that recovery. It is not disputed that the said pujari, DW-1, is a blind man. So, there could not have been any possibility of his having been made a witness to the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant. 27. Pujari, DW-1, had not made any statement that on 24th October 1984 itself, the appellant had not come with the police to the said temple and had not made any recovery of the weapon. 27. Pujari, DW-1, had not made any statement that on 24th October 1984 itself, the appellant had not come with the police to the said temple and had not made any recovery of the weapon. DW-1 appears to be a false witness procured just to support the appellant because he had referred to visit of the police after a few days of the assassination of Indira Gandhi which took place on 31st October 1984. So, his statement does not in any manner throw any doubt on the version of the prosecution. There is no earthly reason to disbelieve the investigating officer, PW-15, S.I. Keshav Ram, PW-14, Khushi Ram and PW-3 Ram Kishan that appellant was arrested in the manner stated by them who had made a disclosure statement which led to the recovery of the weapon of the offence. 28. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any serious discrepancy appearing in the statements of these three witnesses which could throw any doubt with regard to their veracity. Human blood was detected on the said 'pharsa' when it was sent to C.F.S.L., although group of the blood could not be determined by the experts of C.F.S.L. 29. It was urged before us by learned counsel for the appellant that in the present case, the recording of the F.I.R. has been delayed inasmuch as the same has not been recorded at the time purported to have been mentioned in the F.I.R. but must have been recorded after due deliberations belatedly in order to introduce Ram Kishan and Baljit as eye witnesses who actually had not witnessed the occurrence. It has been urged that copy of the F.I.R. was not promptly sent to the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and in the substance which was to be recorded in the daily diary pertaining to the F.I.R. the names of the eye witnesses and the accused have not been mentioned and the inquest papers have not been prepared promptly inasmuch as they came to be received by the doctor, who was to perform the post-mortem, belatedly. 30. 30. It has been held in various judgments of the highest Court and of this Court that delay in recording the F.I.R. not only gets bereft of its spontaneity but danger also creeps in of introduction of coloured version and after thought stories and similarly, the delay in sending the special report in a murder case to the Magistrate also some time leads to doubt the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution. It is further emphasised that the non-incorporation of the names of the eye witnesses or the names of the accused in the substance of the F.I.R. to be recorded in the daily diary also in some cases leads to inference that perhaps the prosecution story is not true. Similarly, non-mentioning of the names of the accused or of the eye witnesses in the brief facts which are sent along with the inquest papers also would some time result in doubting the prosecution version. See State of Punjab v. Tarlok Singh, AIR 1971 SC 1221 : (1971 Cri LJ 1063) : Ishwar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2423 : (1976 Cri LJ 1883) Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala, (1980) 4 SC 425 : (1980 Cri LJ 446), Vijinder Singh v. State, (1984) 1 Crimes 237 : (1984 Cri LJ NOC 26), Lala Ram v. Thakur Singh, (1988) 36 DLT 8 : (1989) Cri LJ 572), Jagjit Singh v. State, (1990) 2 Delhi Lawyer 135 : (1990 Cri LJ NOC 103), Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, (1994) 2 JT SC 6327; State of Gujarat v. Patel Mohan Mulji AIR 1994 SC 250 : (1994 Cri LJ 280) Bandi Mallaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 1160 : (1980 Cri LJ 914). 31. However, in case the Court on perusal of the statements of the eye witnesses and keeping in view the other circumstances, comes to the conclusion in a particular case that eye witnesses are truthful and are reliable and trustworthy, then the lapses of the Investigating Officer in not complying with such safeguards, as are provided in the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to recording of the substance of the F.I.R. in the daily diary, sending of the special report promptly to the Metropolitan Magistrate and recording of brief facts containing the names of the accused and eye witnesses in the inquest proceedings, could be ignored. (See Jeet Singh v. State of Delhi, 1995 (1) Apex Decisions (Delhi) 569; Naresh Kumar v. state, 1995 (1) Apex Decisions (Delhi) 524). 32. In the present case, we have found the testimony of Ram Kishan truthful and trustworthy on which implicit faith can be placed. So, these lapses, even if they had occurred on the part of the police, in our view, would not lead to inference that Ram Kishan is not a truthful witness or he had been introduced belatedly as a false eye witness. 33. In the present case, the prosecution has been little lax in conducting the trial in the trial Court because we find that neither the brief facts, which were sent along with the application seeking postmortem on the dead body, have been exhibited although they are available in the file nor the copy of the daily diary entry pertaining to the recording of the F.I.R. which is also available on the record, has been proved. As far as sending of the special report to the Metropolitan Magistrate is concerned, PW-16, constable has been examined who stated that he was given the copy of the F.I.R. for being delivered to the higher officials including Ilaka Magistrate at 12.30 A.M. and he had delivered the same. In cross-examination, he stated that he had delivered the copy of the F.I.R. to the Metropolitan Magistrate at about 12.40 A.M. and returned to the police station at 12.45 A.M. It was not suggested to him in cross-examination that in fact he had not delivered the copy of the F.I.R. promptly to the Metropolitan Magistrate but we find that copy of the F.I.R. which was delivered to the Metropolitan Magistrate has been exhibited as Ex. PW-12/A which has the endorsement that Metropolitan Magistrate received this report at 10 A.M. The Metropolitan Magistrate has not been put into witness box. 34. In the present case, although these statutory safeguards have been breached by the police which might have led to some suspicion about the veracity of the prosecution case, but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we have come to the conclusion that despite these lapses, the testimony of Ram Kishan is worthy of credence and implicit faith can be put in his testimony for bringing home the offence of murder to this appellant. 35. 35. Be as it may, we have come to the conclusion that Additional Sessions Judge was right in believing the testimony of PW-3. Mere fact that PW-3 is a relation witness does not mean that his statement is not to be given any credence. The law only requires that in case the eye witnesses are relations, the Court should scrutinise, their evidence with more care and caution. There was no reason for Ram Kishan to have falsely implicated the appellant for the murder of his brother. 36. In view of the above discussion, we find that the conviction of the appellant is well based for the offences punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. for having caused the murder of Nathu and under Section 27, of the Arms Act having used a pharsa for causing the said murder. 37. We, hence, do not find any merit in this appeal which we hereby dismiss. We confirm the conviction and sentences of the appellant. Appeal dismissed.