Judgment : N.L. Ganguly, J. 1. SHEO Murat has filed this Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and order dated 21.6.1988 passed by Sri G. D. Dubey. Sessions Judge, Varanasi convicting and sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. and further convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment under Section 307, I.P.C. and further six months R.I. under Section 323, I.P.C. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. THE appellant Sheo Murat is the father of co-accused Ram Shanker. Both were rommitted to the Court of Session for trial under the afore-mentioned Sections. Accused Ram Shanker was charged for the aforesaid offences but with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. The prosecution case is that Bhusi Ram, Suchit and appellant Sheo Murat are residents of village Atesna, P. S. Cholapur, district Varanasi and are close neighbours. Bhusi Ram and Suchit are real brothers, Smt. Ramapati is the wife of Suchit and Mahodar is the daughter of Suchit. Suresh alias Chhutal is the son of Suchit. The old house of Bhusi Ram was constructed on the land belonging to Sheo Murat appellant, which is towards south of the house of the appellant. They were residing therein since the time of their ancestors for more than 30 years. Sheo Murat appellant was pressing Bhusi Ram to vacate this land. Bhusi Ram constructed another house near the aforesaid house and removed the building materials of the old house. Sheo Murat was pressing that Bhusi Ram should leave the building materials of the old house. Bhusi Ram and others had taken away their materials. Consequently, Sheo Murat used to abuse and threaten to kill Ram Surat, S/o Bhusi Ram and Suresh. 3. ABOUT a year before the occurrence, i.e., on 17.2.1985 Bhusi Ram lodged a report (Ext. Ka. 1) in which he had complained of the threats given by the appellant to the reporter and his family. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 8 a.m. on 24.11.1986. Suresh was going to sell milk after loading two milk containers (Balta) on a cycle. He was proceeding towards north of his house. 2-3 minutes after he had left his house, he raised an alarm. On hearing the alarm. Bhusi Ram his brother, Suchit, his daughter-in-law. Jawahar and the wife of Suchit ran towards the place of occurrence. Suresh was going to sell milk after loading two milk containers (Balta) on a cycle. He was proceeding towards north of his house. 2-3 minutes after he had left his house, he raised an alarm. On hearing the alarm. Bhusi Ram his brother, Suchit, his daughter-in-law. Jawahar and the wife of Suchit ran towards the place of occurrence. They saw that Suresh was being assaulted with lathi by appellant Sheo Murat in the field of peas of Narain. The witnesses raised an alarm. Seeing the witnesses coming towards him, the appellant Sheo Murat called his son Ram Shanker co-accused, to bring the Gandasa which he had prepared beforehand. Hearing this alarm, the witnesses stopped but the mother of Suresh Smt. Ramapati went near her son. The appellant Sheo Murat gave lathi blow to her and she fell down. Meanwhile, Ramshanker brought the Gandasa and handed it over to the appellant Sheo Murat. Sheo Murat handed over his lathi to Ramshanker who went away. Sheo Murat assaulted Suresh with Gandasa. After assaulting Suresh. Sheo Murat rushed towards the house of Bhusi Ram shouting that he will kill Ram Surat, son of Bhusi Ram. When found that Ram Surat was not present at the house, he rushed towards the field of Bhusi Ram towards south-east. While rushing towards the field, the accused was shouting saying that Ram Surat must be at the field and he will kill him there. Ram Surat was returning after ploughing his field with plough on his shoulder. His son Ram Asrey was bringing bullocks. When they reached near the Mahaua tree on the Chak road leading towards the village, the appellant was seen by Ram Surat. Ram Surat threw his plough and tried to run away. The appellant assaulted Ram Surat with Gandasa. This occurrence was seen by Bhusi Ram. Jawahar and his daughter-in-law. After assaulting Ram Surat. the appellant Sheo Murat ran away brandishing his Gandasa and threatening the witnesses. When Bhusi Ram went near his son, he found that after wriggling with pain Ram Surat died at the spot. 4. AFTER the occurrence, Bhusi Ram wrote a report Ext. Ka. 2 and went to the police station and handed it over to the Head Moharrir Mahant Pandey of P. S. Cholapur, who registered the case and prepared chik report Ext. Ka. 5. 4. AFTER the occurrence, Bhusi Ram wrote a report Ext. Ka. 2 and went to the police station and handed it over to the Head Moharrir Mahant Pandey of P. S. Cholapur, who registered the case and prepared chik report Ext. Ka. 5. He made an entry in the G. D. Copies of the original report, chik report and the G. D. were proved in the case and marked as Exts. Ka. 2. Ka. 5 and Ka. 6 respectively. The investigation of the case was taken up by Sri Babu Lal Sharma P.W. 11, who first went to the place of occurrence and took the dead body of Ram Surat in his possession. He prepared inquest report Ext. Ka. 8, photonash Ext. Ka. 9. Challannash Ext. Ka. 10, letter for post-mortem examination Ext. Ka. 11. He handed over the dead body of Ram Surat in a sealed cloth to the constables Laxman Prasad P.W. 10 and BriJ Bhushan. The dead body was taken to the mortuary of the Banaras Hindu University. Thereafter, the I.O. interrogated Bhusi Ram, Ram Asrey. Jawahar and other witnesses. He collected blood-stained earth and simple earth from the place of occurrence where Ram Surat had died and prepared a recovery memo Ext. Ka. 12. He had also inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ext. Ka. 13. Thereafter, the I.O. inspected the site where Suresh was assaulted. He took plain and blood-stained earth and shoe of Suresh in his possession and prepared memos Ext. Ka. 14. He also prepared a site plan of the place where Suresh had fallen after receiving injuries. The said site plan has been proved and marked as Ext. Ka. 15. The I.O. had prepared the memo for examination of Smt. Ramapati and sent her to the Primary Health Centre, Cholapur for examination. Dr. P. N. Rai P.W. 5 had examined the injuries of Smt. Ramapati at 7 p.m. on 24.11.1986. The injuries found on her person by the doctor are quoted as under : 1. Diffused swelling left leg with complaint of pain and difficulty in walking. Advised X-ray left leg. 2. Contusion 11 cm. x 2 cm. left side back middle part. The doctor kept injury No. 1 under observation. Injury No. 2 was opined to be simple. The duration of all the injuries was stated to be half a day. The doctor had prepared injury report Ext. Ka. Advised X-ray left leg. 2. Contusion 11 cm. x 2 cm. left side back middle part. The doctor kept injury No. 1 under observation. Injury No. 2 was opined to be simple. The duration of all the injuries was stated to be half a day. The doctor had prepared injury report Ext. Ka. 3. 5. THE injury report of the other injured Suresh Yadav was proved by Dr. Kailash Rai P.W. 6. Suresh Yadav was examined at 11.15 a.m. on 24.11.1986. THE injuries are quoted as under :- 1. Cut injury on right side of head 2.0" x 0.2" x 0.3" laterally 3" above right ear. 2 One contusion 1.0" x 0.3" lateral side of right arm 7" below the right shoulder joint. Advised X-ray. 3. One amputated leg 11.0" below the left leg with skin attached. 4. One lacerated wound on right leg size 3.0" x 1.0" on lateral side of right knee joint. 5 One sharp clear cut injury on right foot on dorsal side 3.0" x 1.0" x 1/2" from lateral malleus. THE doctor has opined that the injuries No. 1, 3 and 5 could be caused by sharp edged weapon like Gandasa and others by blunt object like lathi. THE doctor had prepared the injury report, copy of which is Ext. Ka. 4. THE photostat copy of the original is Ext. Ka. 4/1. 6. DR. Y. N. Pandey P.W. 12 had conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Ram Surat at 3.15 p.m. on 26.11.1986 at the mortuary of Banaras Hindu University. The ante-mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased are quoted as under : 1. Lacerated wound over an area of 4 cm. x 1/2 cm. bone deep with fracture of nosal bone on the dorsum of nose. 2 Multiple contusions in an area of 15 cm. x 5 cm. on the lateral part of forehead. 3. Simple fracture of frontal bone left side. 4. Multiple abraded consutions 15 cm. x 5 cm. in an area of post upper left forearm with fracture of both radius and ulna (simple). S cm. below left elbow joint. 5. Chopped incised wound 15 cm. x through and through 2 cm. below the knee joint, cutting the left leg into two parts, whereas bony ends which was obliquely cut in both the leg bones. x 5 cm. in an area of post upper left forearm with fracture of both radius and ulna (simple). S cm. below left elbow joint. 5. Chopped incised wound 15 cm. x through and through 2 cm. below the knee joint, cutting the left leg into two parts, whereas bony ends which was obliquely cut in both the leg bones. On internal examination the doctor had found that left side frontal parietal and temporal bone had fractured to multiple pieces. The base of cranial bone was fractured. Extra dorsal' and sub-dorsal membranes contained blood and haemotema. The membranes of brain were lacerated. The stomach was empty. The small intestine contained digested material. The large intestine had faecal matters. The urinary bladder was empty. The doctor opined that the injuries Nos. 1, 3 and 4 could be caused by lathi portion of the Gandasa and the remaining by sharp edged part of the Gandasa. The doctor found that the injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The I.O. Sri Babu Lal Sharma searched for accused Sheo Murat and could arrest him at his father-in-law's place in village Hariharpur. He tried to find out the blood-stained Gandasa but it was not available. Ram Shanker accused was also searched by the I.O. but he too was not available. Dr. Rajendra Srivastava was interrogated by the I.O. on 27.11.1986 and some other witnesses were also interrogated, on that date. The investigation was concluded on 16.12.1986 and charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and accused Ram Shanker. 7. THE prosecution examined P.W. 1 Bhusi Ram, P.W. 2 Suresh Yadav, P.W. 3 Ram Asrey and P.W. 4 Jawahar as eye-witnesses. Dr. P. N. Rai P.W. 5 and Dr. Kailash Rai were examined to prove the injuries of Ramapati and Suresh P.W. 7 Mahant Pandey, who registered the case P.W. 8 Avdhesh Pathak, who made G. D. entries and Dr. Rajendra Srivastava P.W. 9, who had X-rayed the injuries of Suresh Yadav were also examined in the case as witnesses. Narain Prasad constable P.W. 10 had taken the dead body of Ram Surat to the mortuary and P.W. 11 Babu Lal Sharma had investigated the case. Dr. Y. N. Pandey P.W. 12 conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Ram Surat. 8. THE appellant pleaded not guilty of the charge. Narain Prasad constable P.W. 10 had taken the dead body of Ram Surat to the mortuary and P.W. 11 Babu Lal Sharma had investigated the case. Dr. Y. N. Pandey P.W. 12 conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Ram Surat. 8. THE appellant pleaded not guilty of the charge. THE appellant examined D.W. Sunil Kumar Srivastava who had recorded the statement of Suresh Yadav in the dispensary of Dr. Rajendra Srivastava in Orderly Bazar, Varanasi on 24.11.1986. THE appellant examined D.W. 2 Gulab Ram Sharma, Record Keeper of the Police Office, Varanasi, who stated that the despatch register of the Police Station Cholapur for the period 24.11.1986 to 29.12.1986 had been destroyed. THE appellant challenged the manner of the occurrence. It was argued that Bhusi Ram was away from his house on the date of occurrence. When he received information of the occurrence, he arrived in the village and the report was got written by him. It was submitted that the F.I.R. in the case is ante- dated and ante-timed. THE argument for the defence is that there was a dispute between the families of Bhusi Ram and Suchit father of Suresh injured about partition of Abadi land. A marpit had taken place between Ram Surat and Suresh. THE alternative suggestion was that both of them had received injuries in the darkness. Therefore, as the assailants had not been seen, the accused were falsely implicated. THE presence of Jawahar brother-in-law of Ram Surat, at the time of occurrence was doubted. Jawahar's sister was married to Ram Surat. It was argued that Rama Shanker, co-accused was a young boy below 12 years and was entitled to the benefit of Section 83 of the I.P.C. The defence of Ram Shanker was that he was below 12 years of age and was entitled for the benefit of Section 83, I.P.C., which was given to him by the learned Sessions Judge. There is no appeal against acquittal of Ram Shanker. 9. HEARD Sri R. N. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant at length and perused the record. Sri R. N. Sharma firstly submitted that the prosecution case, as set up by Bhusi Ram, that Bhusi Ram and Suchit had not left the building materials on the site of their old house constructed on the land of Sheo Murat an enmity had developed, is a very weak and unbelievable case. Sri R. N. Sharma firstly submitted that the prosecution case, as set up by Bhusi Ram, that Bhusi Ram and Suchit had not left the building materials on the site of their old house constructed on the land of Sheo Murat an enmity had developed, is a very weak and unbelievable case. He submitted that when the parties could live for more than 30 years, it could not be the motive for the murder in the present case. The motive suggested by the prosecution has been challenged to be wholly unbelievable. Secondly, it has been argued by Sri Sharma that the F.I.R. Ext. Ka. 2 was lodged after consultation and deliberation and it was ante-timed. The motive part in the F.I.R. was falsely added. The learned counsel submitted that after the occurrence, as disclosed in the F.I.R., it was highly improbable and unbelievable that the informant Bhusi Ram would remember the exact date of the earlier F.I.R. Learned counsel for the appellant placed the statement of P.W. 1 Bhusi Ram (para 12) wherein the witness had stated that he did not remember whether before 17.2.1985 he had lodged any report against the appellant. This sentence is not indicative of the fact that at the time when he lodged the report of the present case, he would not remember the report which he actually had lodged on 17.2.1985. This witness is literate and he stated in his evidence in Court that after the report dated 17.2.1985, the police had scolded him. He had stated that the fact of the earlier lodging of the F.I.R. dated 17.2.1985 was said to the I.O. verbally. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that in the F.I.R., the informant Bhusi Ram had not stated that Sheo Murat had asked to leave the building material of the old house and Sheo Murat became highly annoyed when the witness had taken away the old building material. This omission of non-mentioning of the said fact was put to P.W. 1 Bhusi Ram. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that these were very material facts and constituted the motive for commission of the offence. The F.I.R. is not supposed to be a thesis or description of each and every minor details about the occurrence and the motive for commission of such offence. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that these were very material facts and constituted the motive for commission of the offence. The F.I.R. is not supposed to be a thesis or description of each and every minor details about the occurrence and the motive for commission of such offence. The mental condition of the informant whose son had been killed by others, who received injuries in the assault, would not be peaceful. If such minute details are not mentioned in the F.I.R., it would not create any suspicion about the reliability of the F.I.R. This witness had also stated in his evidence that he had seen the earlier report dated 17.2.1985 several times earlier whenever he looked to the papers at his house. Thus there was no improbability of mentioning the date of the report dated 17.2.1985 in the F.I.R. of the present case. The submission and objection of the learned counsel for the appellant thus deserves to be rejected. 10. THE learned counsel for the appellant argued that several facts were added in the statement of P.W. 1 Bhusi Ram, namely, that 5-6 months before the occurrence there was a quarrel between the accused-appellant Sheo Murat and the son and nephew of Bhusi Ram P.W. 1. THE mere fact that these facts were not mentioned in the F.I.R. of the present case is not an omission, which may render the prosecution case, in any manner, doubtful or unbelievable. The omission of mentioning the details of earlier quarrel between the appellant and the son and nephew of Bhusi Ram may not have been mentioned in the F.I.R. but in the statement of P.W. 1 Bhusi Ram under Section 161, Cr. P.C., it was mentioned that an exchange of words had taken place between the appellant and the party of Bhusi Ram and since then the appellant had threatened them to kill. 11. IT is also not worthy that P.W. 1 and others were already in settled possession over the house constructed over the ancestral land of the accused for more than 30 years. The accused Sheo Murat has also admitted in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. that the land was vacated. The vacation of the land would not have been done by any one very easily. IT appears that this was the reason for creating bad blood between the parties. The accused Sheo Murat has also admitted in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. that the land was vacated. The vacation of the land would not have been done by any one very easily. IT appears that this was the reason for creating bad blood between the parties. Thus, the argument that the motive in the present case was very weak and flimsy is wrong. 12. THE occurrence had taken place in a broad-day light at about 8 a.m. THE occular evidence of P.W. 1 Bhusi Ram, P.W. 2 Suresh, P.W. 3 Jawahar has been placed before us. Sri R. N. Sharma submitted that the witness stated that one of the hands of Suresh had hung after receiving Gandasa blow whereas Suresh had no Gandasa injury on the hand. Thus, It was submitted that there was a contradiction in the statement of the eye-witnesses and medical evidence about the injuries of Ram Surat and Smt. Ramapati. It is submitted that the injuries of Ram Surat are of two nature-one caused by sharp edged weapon and the other by blunt object like lathi Thus, there was probability of attack by two persons on Ram Surat. Ram Surat had thrown his plough when he saw appellant Sheo Murat running towards him with Gandasa in his hand. Bhusi Ram in his statement gave the details of Gandasa, which had a blade of one Balisht i.e. about 9". Two Balishts is equal to one cubit and one cubit is equal to 1 Thus, it would not have been possible for Sheo Murat to aim the blow of sharp edged portion on the person of Ram Surat, who was running for his life. In such state of affairs, it was quite probable that the aim of Gandasa might have missed and only the lathi portion had landed on the hand and head. THE evidence of P.W. 1 Bhusi Ram cannot be said to be, in any manner, in conflict with the medical evidence. Similarly, the injuries of Suresh, who was X-rayed by Dr. Rajendra Srivastava on 24.11.1986. The doctor had prepared the X-ray report, which shows that the distal 1/3 region of humorous of right arm had fractured. After the fracture of this bone of hand, the hand is likely to hang. The witness Bhusi Ram P.W. 1 had seen the attack on Suresh in terror-striken state. Rajendra Srivastava on 24.11.1986. The doctor had prepared the X-ray report, which shows that the distal 1/3 region of humorous of right arm had fractured. After the fracture of this bone of hand, the hand is likely to hang. The witness Bhusi Ram P.W. 1 had seen the attack on Suresh in terror-striken state. The omission to mention minute details of attack and injury is not such which may falsify the prosecution version. The witness had stated that when he returned after the occurrence of attack on Ram Surat, Suresh had been taken to the hospital. Thus, evidently there was no time or occasion for the witness to see the injuries of Suresh minutely. This minor discrepancy is of no consequence. The injury No. 4 of Ram Surat shows that both bones of radius and ulna of right hand were fractured and the hand must have started hanging from the broken part. It could be mistaken that it would be hanging out of cut injury. Bhusi Ram P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased, whose only son was murdered. His mental condition and senses can very well be imagined. On these minor discrepancies, the evidence of Bhusi Ram P.W. 1 cannot be doubted that he was not present at the place of occurrence. 13. THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was inordinate delay in sending copy of the report Ext. Ka. 5. As stated by constable Avdhesh Pathak P.W. 8, it was sent at 3.15 p.m. on 24.11.1986. Sri Sharma specifically pointed out from the F.I.R. that 'Tabht Sheo Murat pahunch kar mere ladke ko gandasa se markar girakar katne laga". In the statement in Court P.W. 1 Bhusi Ram said that "Sheo Murat mere ladke ko gandasa se marne lage. Mera ladka chot khakar gir gaya". He also placed the statement of P.W. 3 Ram Asrey, who stated that Sheo Murat started assaulting with Gandasa. P.W. 4 Jawahar also said that Sheo Murat after getting the Gandasa started assaulting Suresh alias Chhutai. THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was a material contradiction and variance in the statement of the witnesses. Sri K. C. Saxena, learned A.GA. P.W. 4 Jawahar also said that Sheo Murat after getting the Gandasa started assaulting Suresh alias Chhutai. THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was a material contradiction and variance in the statement of the witnesses. Sri K. C. Saxena, learned A.GA. cited the case reported in Sampat Tatyada Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 791 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that 'the discrepancies in matters of detail pertaining to the precise number of blows given by the assailants, the standing or lying posture of the victim at the time of the assault always occur even in the evidence of truthful witnesses. Such variations creep in because there are always natural differences in the faculties of different individuals in the matter of observation, perception and memorisation of details. They are hardly a ground for rejecting their evidence when there is consensus as to the substratum of the case. 14. THE learned A. G. A. cited the case reported in Bry Pal Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others, 1993 (30) All Cri C 358 and submitted that the evidence of eye-witnesses, who are injured also, is not to be discarded easily. THE Supreme Court was pleased to observe that 'presence of injuries on them establishes their presence at the scene of occurrence. THE evidence of such witnesses is not to be appreciated in a meticulous examination of exact place where these witnesses were standing. Mere finding of some such discrepancy was held not to be justified for appreciating their evidence'. Sri K. C. Saxena cited the decision reported in Punjab Singh v. State of Haryana, 1984 (1) Crimes SC 859. THE Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that 'the inconsistency between the medical evidence and direct testimony would be of no help to the defence'. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the special report was not immediately sent rather there was inordinate delay in sending the special report. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the I.O. Sri Babu Lal Sharma P.W. 11 had not visited and seen the field where Ram Surat had gone to plough. The evidence of Ram Asrey was also challenged and submitted that he could not be present at the time of the incident. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the I.O. Sri Babu Lal Sharma P.W. 11 had not visited and seen the field where Ram Surat had gone to plough. The evidence of Ram Asrey was also challenged and submitted that he could not be present at the time of the incident. Merely because he is a relation, he is not to be disbelieved when his evidence finds corroboration from the evidence of injured witnesses. The law is not to discard the evidence of interested and relative witnesses merely because they are interested witnesses. The rule of caution is to be applied and the statement is to be appreciated with caution. Thus, we do not find that there is any doubt in the statement of P.W. 3 Ram Asrey. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that P.W. 6 Dr. Kailash Rai had examined Suresh at some other time and prepared an ante- timed report. This report was proved as Ext. Ka. 1. It was suggested that it was completed at 10.45 a.m. The examination of the injured started at 11.15 a.m. at Orderly Bazar. It was submitted that it was impossible for Dr. Kailash Rai to have arrived at the dispensary of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava at the alleged time . This argument was repelled by the learned Sessions Judge. The distance between Sonia and the dispensary of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava was not elicited in the cross-examination. It was also not elicited as to on what vehicle the doctor covered the distance between his consulting chamber and Dr. Srivastava's clinic. In his evidence Dr. Rai gave an explanation about Ext. Kha. 1. He stated that when he started making entries regarding the injuries of Alok Prakash, he refused to get his injuries recorded and cancelled this page. The cancellation of that page itself is a guarantee of this fact that the doctor had not committed any act of forgery or fabrication of any false injury report. The doctor had received the report at 10.45 a.m. that there was an emergency case and he should proceed at once. He had arrived at 11.12 a.m. In this way, there was a travelling time of 27 minutes. This was a sufficient time for covering the distance between Sonia and Orderly Bazar on a fast moving vehicle, like car, scooter or moped or even auto-rickshaw. He had arrived at 11.12 a.m. In this way, there was a travelling time of 27 minutes. This was a sufficient time for covering the distance between Sonia and Orderly Bazar on a fast moving vehicle, like car, scooter or moped or even auto-rickshaw. The learned Sessions Judge took a judicial notice of the fact that Police Station Sigra is not more than 8 kms. from the outpost of Ardali Bazar. It was not impossible to cover this distance in 27 minutes. 15. THE learned counsel for the appellant also brought to the notice of the Court some over-writings in the original report Ext. Ka. 4/1. It was stated that the time 10 : 15' was changed to 11 : 15' and there is another over-writing in the figure of dimension of injury No. 2. THE perusal of the original report does not show any over-writing at all. There is no over-writing in the figure 1'. THE figure 1' has become thick in the middle. As regards second over-writing, the doctor stated that the condition of the injured-patient was precarious, he had hurried in recording of injury report : hence in haste such over-writing had occurred. THE explanation given by the doctor appears to be reasonable. We do not find any good ground for discarding the explanation given by the doctor. One of the legs of Suresh had to be amputated. At the time of examination, the lower part of the leg was attached with the upper part with small strip of skin. THE doctor had recorded the general condition of Suresh as poor. In such state of affairs, the error of over-writing in recording the injury report is not improbable. THE learned counsel for the appellant had not argued about the X-ray report. We after considering the medical evidence with the occular evidence, etc., do not find any good reason to arrive at a different conclusion other than that of the trial court. 16. THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the investigation in the case was not satisfactory. THE I.O. Babu Lal Sharma had not cared to go to the field which is said to have been ploughed by Ram Surat. He had not cared to see the bullocks and plough of Ram Surat. He had not seen the two Baltas (milk can) which were carried on by Suresh on a cycle. THE I.O. Babu Lal Sharma had not cared to go to the field which is said to have been ploughed by Ram Surat. He had not cared to see the bullocks and plough of Ram Surat. He had not seen the two Baltas (milk can) which were carried on by Suresh on a cycle. He also submitted that there was inordinate delay in transmitting the dead body of Ram Surat. THE dead body of Ram Surat was sent from the place of occurrence in the evening of 24.11.1986 and the papers were handed over at 3.15 p.m. to the doctor on 26.11.1986. THE reason for the delay was explained by the prosecution. It was stated that the doctors were on strike, as such the post-mortem examination was delayed. We do not consider that the prosecution case be thrown merely on the ground of delay or such infirmities as pointed out above in the investigation of the case. After considering the evidence on record and examining the infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution case does not become doubtful or tainted and the infirmities pointed out, by the learned counsel for the appellant, do not prejudice the case of the appellant, in any manner. We have already recorded out findings after appreciating the evidence of the injured witnesses and other witnesses examined along with the evidence of the doctor examined in the case. We have also examined the evidence of D.W. 1 Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, S.D.M. Chakia, who had recorded the statement of Suresh Yadav at the private nursing home at Orderly Bazar. In the statement before the Magistrate, Suresh Yadav has stated that when he was going on cycle, from the back Sheo Murat had given Danda blow on the head and hand and both of his hands had fractured. The witness stated that he had not seen his mother to have received injuries but stated to have heard that his mother was also assaulted. D.W. 1 stated that Sheo Murat had not stated that the witness Suresh had stated that 'Sheo Murat Ne Kaha KiAi Rama Shanker Jain Gandasa Banake Dhaile Hain, he Aao". These statements are said to be contrary to the statement of P.W. 2 Suresh Yadav, who has been examined in Court as injured eye-witness. D.W. 1 stated that Sheo Murat had not stated that the witness Suresh had stated that 'Sheo Murat Ne Kaha KiAi Rama Shanker Jain Gandasa Banake Dhaile Hain, he Aao". These statements are said to be contrary to the statement of P.W. 2 Suresh Yadav, who has been examined in Court as injured eye-witness. We have already discussed and appreciated the evidence of Suresh Yadav P.W. 2. We do not consider that these contradictions are such, which may be sufficient to discard the evidence of the said witness. We are of the opinion that the prosecution case is proved against the appellant. The motive and intention of the accused to commit and to attempt to commit murder of Suresh and murder of Ram Surat is established. The findings of the trial court on appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be in any manner erroneous or legally incorrect. We affirm the findings of the trial Court. 17. THE appeal of appellant Sheo Murat has no force and is hereby dismissed. THE appellant is in jail. He shall remain there to serve out the sentence awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge. After the judgment was pronounced, learned counsel for the complainant- opposite party appeared before rising of the court and mentioned that the appellant is not in jail and he has been granted bail on 30.9.90. THE C.J.M. is directed to enquire into it and in case the appellant is on bail, the appropriate orders for his arrest may be taken so that he may serve out the sentence. Appeal dismissed.