JUDGMENT 1. - Appellants, (1) Deshraj, (2) Prakash, (3) Mahesh Kumar, (4) Maha Singh @ Mahadev, (5) Karan Singh, (6) Shaitan Singh, and (7) Rohitas @ Om Prakash were tried by the learned Sessions Judge. Sikar for offences under Sections 148, 302 IPC in the alternative under section 302/149, IPC, and under section 3 (2) (v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for brevity "the Act"). The learned trial Judge acquitted the appellants for offence under section 3 (2) (v) of the Act. but by his impugned judgment and order dated 23/3/1993 convicted them for offences under section 148, 302 read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced each one of them to three years' rigorous imprisonment on the first count and to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months on the second count. The learned trial Judge also directed that their substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The facts of this case as indicated from the evidence on record are short and simple can be summarised in a short compass. Deceased Mahendra Kumar Meena was a part time Chowkidar in Government Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Hostel run by the State Social Welfare Department at Neema Ka Thana. PW 4 Rohitas Balai was Wardan of the said hostel. On 10/4/1991 at about 5.30 PM. the deceased alongwith Rohitas Balai was sitting and waiting for their turn in the Hair Cutting Saloon run by Manohar Nai situated on the Mandi Road, Neem Ka Thana near the crossing of Mandi Chhawani Road and Bhudoli Road. It is the case of prosecution that 3-4 boys, who were armed with Farsi, axe, and iron rod came to the said saloon, dragged the deceased and took him out. The deceased then escaped himself from their clutches, ran away towards the crossing and in order to save his life tried to enter inside Bajrang General Store run by PW 3 Subhash Gupta by climbing over the gunny bags containing chillies. The afore named appellants alongwith 5-6 other persons hotly pursued the deceased. Appellants Deshraj, Mahesh Kumar & Karan Singh were armed with Farsis, while Prakash, Shaitan Singh and Rohitas (g) Om Prakash had axes, and Maha Singh @ Mahadev was armed with an iron rod (Saira). The afore named appellants alongwith 5-6 other persons hotly pursued the deceased. Appellants Deshraj, Mahesh Kumar & Karan Singh were armed with Farsis, while Prakash, Shaitan Singh and Rohitas (g) Om Prakash had axes, and Maha Singh @ Mahadev was armed with an iron rod (Saira). Appellant Maha Singh @ Mahadev caught hold of the collar of the deceased from backside and dragged him on the pavement. Appellants, Deshraj @ Karan Singh inflicted Farsi blows on the head while appellants Prakash @ Om Prakash gave axe blows on the head of the deceased. Appellant Mahesh gave Farsi blow on his neck and while appellant Shaitan Singh inflicted an axe blow on the face of the deceased. Appellant Mahadev pierced the iron rod on the cheek of the deceased. The appellants and their companions mercilessly beat, caused multiple injuries to him and then ran away towards Khetri road. 3. It is also the case of prosecution that the said incident vyas witnessed by PW 2 Suresh and PW 12 Nand Ram, both by caste Meenas, who at the time of incident were purchasing vegetables nearby, as also by PW 9 Hukam Singh & PW 10 Mahesh, both by caste Meenas, who were standing near the betel shop of PW 11 Gopal Meena and by PW 3 Subhash Gupta, owner of Bajrang Grocery Store. Deceased Mahendra Meena, who was lying injured and bleeding professedly, was taken in a tempo by PW 4 Rohitash Balai and others to Kapil Hospital, situated in Mandi Neem Ka Thana, where the latter was given medical first aid by the doctor. Since the condition of Mahendra Kumar was precarious, the doctor advised them to take Mahendra Kumar to Jaipur. Thereupon PW 4 Rohitash Balai and PW 10 Mahesh Meena hired a Maruti Van proceed towards Jaipur and when they reached near village Chala, situated at a distance of 14 Kms from Mandi Neem Ka Thana. Mahendra Kumar succumbed to his injuries. Hence, they brought back the dead body of Mahendra Kumar to the Hospital Mandi Neem Ka Thana, where the doctor asked them to take the dead body to the Government Hospital. Chhawani Neem Ka Thana for post mortem examination. 4. PW 2 Suresh Kumar lodged a written report Ex.P 2 on the same day at 7 PM. at police station Neem Ka Thana, whereupon PW 14 Man Prakash SHO registered crime vide FIR Ex.P. 3. Chhawani Neem Ka Thana for post mortem examination. 4. PW 2 Suresh Kumar lodged a written report Ex.P 2 on the same day at 7 PM. at police station Neem Ka Thana, whereupon PW 14 Man Prakash SHO registered crime vide FIR Ex.P. 3. It may be mentioned here that PW 2 Suresh in his report Ex.P 2 had mentioned that the afore named appellants alongwith 3-4 other persons, who were armed with axe, farsi & iron rod had come to the shop of Manohar Nai (Barber), that they attacked upon Mahendra Kumar and brought him beating near the grocery shop of PW 3 Subhash Gupta and after causing multiple injuries and treating him to be dead, fled away towards Khetri road. It was also mentioned in report Ex.P 2 that thereafter PW 4 Rohitash Superintendent Government Hostel took Mahendra Kumar to the hospital and after sometime Mahendra Kumar died and that the said incident was witnessed by Suresh. Subhash, Gopal Meena, Nandram and Hukam Singh. PW 14 Man Prakash SHO after registering the case sent the FIR to PW 17 Durgadutt Dy.S.P Neem Ka Thana. who after inspecting the place of incident, prepared site plan Ex.P. 1 and its memo Ex.P 21, lifted the blood stained soil and the control sample of soil from the place of occurrence vide seizure memo Ex.P 4 and 5 respectively and sealed the packets thereof. He conducted the inquest and prepared its report and procured the opinion of Panchas vide Ex.Ps. 6 & 7 respectively. He also seized the blood stained pant, bushir & oaniyan (vest), form the dead body of Mahendra and sealed the packet thereof vide seizure memo Ex.P 8. 5. On 11/4/91, the medical board comprising of three doctors including PW 15 Dr. C.M. Agrawal, conducted medico-legal autopsy and vide post mortem report Ex.P 20. found following injuries on the person of the deceased : 1. Incised wound 15 cmx3 cmxbone deep obliquely anterior posteriorly placed from middle of the skull rt. (anterior) to left. Bone was exposed and cut measuring 4 cmx0.25 cm. There is a chip fracture measuring 3 cmx2 cm and brain was not exposed. On opening the skull sub dural haematoma was found. 2. Incised wound 5 cmx2 cmx bone deep posterior part of rt. parietal region. 3. Incised wound 4 cmxl cmxbone deep on right frontal area anteriorly. There was a fracture of rt. There is a chip fracture measuring 3 cmx2 cm and brain was not exposed. On opening the skull sub dural haematoma was found. 2. Incised wound 5 cmx2 cmx bone deep posterior part of rt. parietal region. 3. Incised wound 4 cmxl cmxbone deep on right frontal area anteriorly. There was a fracture of rt. frontal bone. 4. Incised wound 1 cmx 1/2cm bone deep over right fronto parietal area. 5. Black eyes both sides. 6. Incised wound 2 cmxl cm across whole depth of rt. cheek near angle of mouth. 7. Incised wound 1 cmx0.5 cm between lower lip and chin rt. side. Through & through cut. Injuries Nos. 6 & 7 resulted in multiple fracture of lower jaw with dislocation of jaw and multiple dislocation & fracture of teeth of both jaws. 8. Incised wound 6 cmx 1/2cm x skin deep from left zygomatic area to posterior auricle with cutting pinna slightly. 9. Abrasion 3 cmx2 cm left side of chest middle part. 10. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm over left shoulder. 11. Lacerated wound 1.5 cmx 1 cm x0.5 cm ulna side of left forearm junction of lower l/3rd and upper ⅔rd. 12. Lacerated wound 2 cmxl cmx0.5 cm over left forearm below elbow joint. 13. Multiple small abrasion on dorsum of right hand completely. 14. Abrasion 3 cmx0.5 cm outer occipital right arm middle part. 15. Abrasion 1 cmx0.5 cm front of chest (rt.) 16. Abrasion 4 cmx 1/2cm outer aspect of left thigh middle part. 17. Abrasion 5 cm x 0.5 cm on anterior aspect left leg middle part., 6. The doctor opined that the cause of death of the deceased was shock and comma due to excessive bleeding and compression of brain. All the injuries sustained by the deceased were ante mortem in nature. 7. The appellants were arrested vide arrest memoes Exs. P 22 to P. 26 from 12/4/91 to 19/4/91. It is alleged that each of appellants, Mahesh Kumar, Deshraj & Karan Singh in pursuance to their respective informations given under section 27 Evidence Act got recovered axes, while appellants. Prakash & Maha Singh got recovered Saria from their houses. The recovered weapons were sent to the State forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. However, as per Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.P. 33 none of the afore mentioned weapons was found stained with blood. Prakash & Maha Singh got recovered Saria from their houses. The recovered weapons were sent to the State forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. However, as per Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.P. 33 none of the afore mentioned weapons was found stained with blood. After completion of the investigation, a challan was filed against the appellants in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neem Ka thana, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial, and against six other persons, who could not be apprehended, the investigation was kept pending under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. 8. The appellants denied the indictment and claimed trial to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. The appellants in their plea recorded under section 313, Cr.P.c. denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence as also the alleged recoveries of weapons. Appellant Maha Singh asserted that he is not known either by the name of Mahadev or Maha Singh. All the appellants claimed that they have been falsely implicated due to the party fraction. They examined three witnesses in their defence. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge by his impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner indicated ultra. Hence this appeal. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned counsel for the complainant at length and carefully perused the record of the trial Court in extenso. We have also meticulously scanned and scrutinised the evidence recorded in this case. 10. It has been vigorously canvassed by Shri Bajwa and Shri Gupta that in this case FIR Ex.P 2 is an ante dated and post investigation document and that the same was not at all lodged on the day and time, which has been mentioned in the report Ex.P 2. They have pointed out that as per the testimony of PW 2 Suresh. when PW 4 Rohitash Balai and PW 10 Mahesh Meena proceeded for Jaipur taking injured Mahendra Kumar, he went to the police station and submitted a written report Ex.P 2, whereas Mahendra died near village Challa. They have pointed out that as per the testimony of PW 2 Suresh. when PW 4 Rohitash Balai and PW 10 Mahesh Meena proceeded for Jaipur taking injured Mahendra Kumar, he went to the police station and submitted a written report Ex.P 2, whereas Mahendra died near village Challa. when he was being taken to Jaipur, thus, according to them, PW 2 Suresh could not have known about the death of Mahendra Kumar, but still then in written report Ex P. 2, it has been mentioned that Mahendra Kumar had succumbed to his injuries. According to them, Mahendra Kumar was alive till the FIR was lodged. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for PW 2 Suresh to have mentioned in FIR Ex.P. 2 that Mahendra Kumar had died. Similarly, there was no occasion for the police to have registered the crime for offence under section 302. IPC. 11. Their next thrust of argument is that in the FIR, names and parentage of the alleged eye witnesses have been mentioned, which could have been possible only after due inquiry by Suresh. This indicates that FIR Ex.P 2 has been lodged after due deliberation. Moreover the FIR is alleged to have been lodged at 7 PM while it was sent to the Magistrate in the after noon of 11/4/91 and this delay has also not been explained. All these facts manifestly show that the FIR is an ante dated and post investigation document, which makes the prosecution case highly suspicious. 12. Their another contention is that the alleged incident took place in a crowded locality, where persons of different castes were also present, but, the prosecution has not produced those independent witnesses and only witnesses of Meena community have been examined as eye witnesses, who are chance and interested witnesses. According to them, the learned trial Judge ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution for non production of material and independent witnesses. They have submitted in the FIR Ex.R 2 no specific overt act of individual appellant has been mentioned, nor in the site plan various places and distances from where the eye witnesses watched the incident have been shown. However, during investigation and trial, the witnesses have changed the place of income and made material improvements. They have submitted in the FIR Ex.R 2 no specific overt act of individual appellant has been mentioned, nor in the site plan various places and distances from where the eye witnesses watched the incident have been shown. However, during investigation and trial, the witnesses have changed the place of income and made material improvements. These witnesses though belonged to Meena community but they did not try to intervene and save Mahendra and this unnatural conduct makes their testimony untrustworthy. They have pointed out that as per statements of PW 3 Subhash Gupta and PW 11 Gopal, some of the assailants had covered their faces whereas other eye witnesses have stated that the assailants had not muffled their faces. Therefore, it was not possible for the alleged eye witness to have named and identified the assailants. Besides this, the statements of the alleged eye witnesses are full of inconsistencies and contradictions and they have also made substantial improvements during trial. Sarva Shri Bajwa and Gupta have also pointed out that admittedly injured Mahendra Kumar was initially taken to Hospital. Mandi Neen Ka Thana, where the doctor had given medical first aid and referred him to Jaipur Hospital, but the prosecution has deliberately not examined the said doctor nor produced any document, which could have thrown light about the initial version of the incident and injuries sustained by the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has withheld material evidence, which has caused prejudice to the appellant, and the learned trial Judge ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution on this count. 13. Another limb of their arguments is that apparently there was no motive for murder, and that the deceased was a history sheeter and many criminal cases were pending against him and as such this possibility cannot be ruled out that some other persons having animosity might have committed his murder and, therefore, the appellants have been falsely implicated. 14. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have asserted that from the evidence on record, it stands firmly established that PW 4 Rohitas and PW 10 Mahasingh had taken injured Mahendra in a tempo immediately after the incident to the hospital. Mandi Neem Ka Thana. 14. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have asserted that from the evidence on record, it stands firmly established that PW 4 Rohitas and PW 10 Mahasingh had taken injured Mahendra in a tempo immediately after the incident to the hospital. Mandi Neem Ka Thana. where the doctor administered an injection and also gave medical first aid to him but since his condition was serious, the doctor advised them to take him to Jaipur and it took about half an hour. Rohitas Balai and Mahesh Meena hired a Maruti Van and while they were taking injured Mahendra to Jaipur near village Challa. which is situated at a distance of about 14 Kms.. from Mandi, Neem Ka Thana. Mahendra Kumar succumbed to his injuries and. therefore, these witnesses again brought back that deceased to Mandi Hospital Neem Ka Thana where the doctor asked them to take the dead body to Govt. Hospital, Chhawani Neem ka Thana for post mortem examination. At that time, they had asked Suresh to lodge the report at the police station. Suresh. therefore, submitted written report Ex.P. 2 on the same day at 7 PM. Thus it is crystal clear that at the time of lodging the report Ex.R 2. Suresh very well knew that Mahendra Kumar had died. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant on this count is groundless and against the record. They have asserted that the FIR was lodged promptly and that there was no time for any embellishment. It is not necessary to stuff the FIR. with minutest details and that minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of eye witnesses, who were examined in the trial court after about a year of the incident, are. therefore, quite natural. They have submitted that due to dastardly act committed by the appellants, the shop keepers of the locality were so much terrified that they had put down shutters of their shops and many of shop keepers had ran away. The presence of eye witnesses at the time and place of incident was quite natural, that they are neither relatives of the deceased nor they are interested witnesses. They have supported the impugned judgment and reiterated the reasonings given therein. 15. We have bestowed our most anxious, careful and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made before us. But. The presence of eye witnesses at the time and place of incident was quite natural, that they are neither relatives of the deceased nor they are interested witnesses. They have supported the impugned judgment and reiterated the reasonings given therein. 15. We have bestowed our most anxious, careful and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made before us. But. before we proceed to give our findings on the rival contentions, it would be conducive to briefly discuss, analyse and evaluate the evidence recorded in this case. The Prosecution evidence mainly consists of statements of the eye witnesses PW 2 Suresh. PW 3 Subhash Gupta, PW 4 Rohitas Balai, PW 9 Hukam Singh Meena. PW 10 Mahesh Kumar Meena, PW 11 Gopal Meena, PW 12 Nandram Meena. 16. PW 4 Rohitas Balai is the warden of Government Scheduled Tribe Hostel of the Social Welfare Department Neem Ka Thana since 1985. He stated that on 10/4/91 at about 5.30 PM. he and deceased Mahendra Kumar, who was part time chowkidar in the said hostel were sitting in the Hair Cutting Saloon of Manohar Nai and were waiting for their turn; that in the meanwhile 3-4 boys armed with axe. farsi & iron rod came there and dragged out deceased Mahendra Kumar from the shop, that deceased Mahendra Kumar in order to save his life, ran away towards Bajrang Grocery Store, and tried to enter into that shop by scaling over the gunny bags lying there, but in the mean while one of the assailants caught hold of the collar of Mahendra Kumar from his backside and took him on the road. He deposed that the assailants were 10-12 in number, that they were armed with axes, farsis, iron rods and lathies and that they inflicted multiple injuries on the head, face and neck of Mahendra Kumar, who fell down. He stated that initially, when three assailants had gone inside the shop of Manohar Nai to drag out Mahendra. rest of the assailants were standing outside that shop and that all of them had attacked upon Mahendra Kumar. He deposed that he shouted and asked the assailants to leave Mahendra. He stated that initially, when three assailants had gone inside the shop of Manohar Nai to drag out Mahendra. rest of the assailants were standing outside that shop and that all of them had attacked upon Mahendra Kumar. He deposed that he shouted and asked the assailants to leave Mahendra. that PW 2 Suresh, PW 10 Mahesh Meena, PW 9 Hukam Singh and PW 11 Gopal Meena also raised alarms but the assailants threatened that if anybody dared to rescue Mahendra then he would also meet the same fate and that the assailants after inflicting multiple injuries to Mahendra fled away. This witness further stated that he waited for 2-3 minutes and thereafter he alongwith PWs Nandram, Suresh went near Mahendra Kumar, who was lying injured and took him in a tempo to Kapil Hospital, Mandi. Neem Ka Thana. that the doctor gave him medical first aid and advised him to take Mahendra to Jaipur as Isster's condition was serious. He, therefore, hired a Maruti Van and alongwith PW 12 Nandram took injured Mahendra proceeded for Jaipur. When they reached near village Challa. Mahendra succumbed to his injuries. Thereupon they brought his dead body to Neem Ka Thana, where the doctor told them that the post mortem of Mahendra would be conducted in Government Hospital, Chhawani Neem Ka Thana. He deposed that at that time, he had asked Suresh to lodge a report in the police station. He told that one or two of the assailants had put towels on their faces while 1 -2 assailants had put towels on their heads. He stated that his Hostel was situated just 2-3 shops away from the shop of Manohar Nai and that the distance between Hostel and that shop was about 20 paces. He admitted that he knew PWs Nandtam. Hukam Singh and Mahesh previously. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time and place of incident. This witness has not named any of the appellants but he has proved the factum of incident. His name also does not find in the FIR as eye witness. On the other hand, it has been mentioned therein that after the appellants and their companions had fled away from the place of incident causing multiple injuries to Mahendra (deceased). Rohitas Balai Superintendent of the said Hostel took Mahendra to the hospital. His name also does not find in the FIR as eye witness. On the other hand, it has been mentioned therein that after the appellants and their companions had fled away from the place of incident causing multiple injuries to Mahendra (deceased). Rohitas Balai Superintendent of the said Hostel took Mahendra to the hospital. The learned trial Judge has held that PW 4 Rohitas Kumar was not an eye witness and has placed reliance on the testimony of other eye witnesses. But from the statement of this witness, this fact stands well proved that immediately after the incident he had taken injured Mahendra in a Tempo to Mandi Hospital and thereafter proceeded to Jaipur in a Maruti Van but in the way near village-challa Mahendra died, that thereupon, he brought back his dead body to Mandi Hospital and asked Suresh to lodge a report at the police station 17. PW 2 Suresh Meena, aged 20 years, is a student. He deposed that on 10.4.91 at about 5.30 PM., he alongwith PW 12 Nandram were purchasing vegetables from a Rehri' (thela) on the crossing of Bhudoli-Khetri road. They saw Mahendra running away from the shop of Manohar Nai, and appellants Shaitan Singh, Om Prakash, Deshraj, Mahesh Kumar, Karan Singh alias Pappu. Maha Singh and 5-6 other persons were chasing him. Appellants Deshraj, Mahesh Kumar & Karan Singh had Farsis, while appellants Shaitan Singh, Prakash and Rohitas alias Om Prakash were armed with axes, appellant Maha Singh alias Mahadev had a saria' (iron rod) and that other assailants had lathies. When deceased Mahendra attempted to enter into the shop of PW 3 Subhash Gupta, appellant Maha Singh caught hold of his neck and dragged him down from the gunny bags containing chilies. Appellant Deshraj and Karan Singh inflicted farsi blows on the head of Mahendra while appellant Mahesh Kumar dealt a farsi blow on his neck. Thereupon Mahendra fell down and appellant Shaitan Singh dealt an axe blow on the jaw of Mahendra Prakash and Om Prakash inflicted axe blows on his face. Appellant Maha Singh pierced the iron rod on the cheek of Mahendra Kumar. Other assailants of inflicted lathi blows to Mahendra. PW 2 Suresh further deposed that thereupon, he alongwith Nandram. Hukam Singh. Mahesh Meena. Appellant Maha Singh pierced the iron rod on the cheek of Mahendra Kumar. Other assailants of inflicted lathi blows to Mahendra. PW 2 Suresh further deposed that thereupon, he alongwith Nandram. Hukam Singh. Mahesh Meena. and Rohitas shouted and asked the appellants to stop beating but they threatened them and told that whosoever would come near them, he would also meet the same fate and therefore, none of eye witnesses deared to go near Mahendra. Thereafter, the appellants and their companions ran away towards their village Godawas. PW 2 Suresh specifically stated that he knew the appellants previously. He has also correctly identified them in the trial Court. PW 2 Suresh has further stated that after the appellants had fled away, he alongwith PWs Nandram. Mahendra alias Mahesh & Rohitas took injured Mahendra in a tempo to the Mandi Hospital, where the doctor pricked an injection to him and also stitched his wounds. Since the condition of Mahendra was serious, the doctor advised them to take him to Jaipur. Thereupon, PWs Mahesh and Rohitash took Mahendra in a Maruti Van and proceeded for Jaipur. He stated that he went to the police station to lodge the report. He has proved written report Ex.P 2 and the formal FIR Ex.P 3. In his cross examination, he told that he had written written report Ex.P. 2 at about 7 P.M. in Jai Ambey Medical Store, which is situated just opposite Mandi Hospital. He admitted that in written report Ex.P. 2 he did not mention that he had gone to purchase vegetables because at that time he was in a perplexed state of mind. He also admitted that though in report Ex.P 2 details of arms carried by the appellants were mentioned but it was not described specifically as to which of the accused was armed with what type of weapon. He further admitted that in written report Ex.R 2 he did not mention that PWs Hukam Singh & Mahesh Meena were standing near the betel shop of Gopal or that when they shouted and asked the appellants not to belabour Mahendra Meena, the latter had threatened and told as to whoever would come near them would meet the same fate. 18. 18. A perusal of written report Ex.P 2 reveals that Suresh had mention therein that the aforesaid appellants alongwith 3-4 others were armed with axe, farsi and iron rods, that they had come to the shop of Manohar Nai. where Mahendra was sitting, that they pounced upon Mahendra and took him beating upto the shop of PW 3 Subhash Gupta and after taking him to be dead, fled away on the Bhudoli road. It has also been mentioned in written report Ex.R 2 that thereafter Rohitas took Mahendra to the Hospital and that after some time, Mahendra died and that the said incident was witnessed by PWs Suresh, Subhash, Gopal, Mahesh Meena, Nandram and Hukam Singh. 19. It would suffice to mention that the FIR is meant to give only substance of the allegations made. It is not necessary to stuff it with minutest details. The omissions to give details about the type of weapon, which particular assailant was carrying, details or exact places from where from where the alleged eye witnesses had witnessed the incident or non-mentioning of the name of a particular witness are not necessary to be incorporated in the FIR. It is not at all necessary to give a photographic description of the incident and to stuff the FIR with minutest details. The words, "relating to the commission of the cognizable offence" appearing in Section 154 Cr.RC. do not and cannot mean that the FIR must be detailed one. 20. In Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1988 CAR SC 97) it has been held that when the F.I.R. was lodged with utmost promptitude, it did not require to have details as to in which manner the accused inflicted injuries to the deceased. It was a murder case. In the FIR it was merely stated that the accused gave one handle blow on the forehead of the deceased. Then the deceased fell down and the accused gave 3-4 Handle blows to the deceased whereas in his deposition before the Court the informant made the improvement by stating that out of the 3-4 handle blows one hit him on the right side of the forehead, one on the back of the head. It was also not mentioned in the F.I.R. that PWs "J" & "G" had tried to intervene to rescue the decease. It was also not mentioned in the F.I.R. that PWs "J" & "G" had tried to intervene to rescue the decease. It was, therefore, urged that because of the said improvements, the prosecution story as made out in the F.I.R. was doubtful. The Apex Court rejected the said contention and held that it was not at all necessary to give such details in the F.I.R. as to in which manner the accused inflicted injuries to the deceased and that the ocular evidence giving details of the manner in which the accused inflicted injuries to the deceased, cannot be said to be improvement over the version of the F.I.R. 21. In Arjun and others v. State of Rajasthan, (1992 (2) WLC p. 245) overt acts attributed to the accused persons did not find place in the F.I.R. It was urged on their behalf that it was a case of exaggeration and that no reliance could be placed on the ocular evidence especially when all the informant has failed to give such details in the F.I.R. The Division Bench of this Court reiterated that the F.I.R. is neither an encyclopedia of the entire case nor a substantive piece of evidence, that the value of F.I.R. is confined corroborations or contradictions and that omissions or misdescriptions of details in the FIR recorded promptly within three hours of occurrence would not tell on the prosecution case or the statements of eye witnesses with regard to the participation of the accused appellants in the crime. The testimony of the informant eye witness, therefore, can not be held to be unreliable, simply because overt acts attributed did not find place in the FIR. 22. Hence, simply because the overt act attributed to the accused appellants were not mentioned in the written report Ex.P 2 , which was lodged immediately after the occurrence without undue delay, it cannot be held that PW 2 Suresh has made any material improvement in this case or that his testimony is unworthy of credence. In our considered opinion, the testimony of PW 2 Suresh, despite searching cross examination, has remained intact and unshattered. He is neither a relative of the deceased, nor he bears any animosity with the appellants. The learned trial Judge has, therefore, not committed any error or illegality in placing reliance on his testimony. 23. In our considered opinion, the testimony of PW 2 Suresh, despite searching cross examination, has remained intact and unshattered. He is neither a relative of the deceased, nor he bears any animosity with the appellants. The learned trial Judge has, therefore, not committed any error or illegality in placing reliance on his testimony. 23. PW 3 Subhash Gupta, who is the owner of Bajrang Grocery Store, has substantially proved the factum of incident though he has not named any of the assailants. He stated that on 10.4.91 at about 5 PM about 8-10 persons armed with iron rods, lathies and other weapons had belaboured. Mahendra in front of his shop, and that thereafter the assailants ran away towards Khetri road. He deposed that on seeing the said incident, he closed his shop and fled away. All other shop keepers had also closed their shops. He stated that the injured Mahendra was lying injured for about 5-7 minutes and that thereafter PW Rohitash Verma took him in a tempo In his cross examination, he stated that the assailants had covered their faces by putting towels and that he had not seen the appellants previously. It is true that this witness has not been declared hostile but in his police statement also, he had stated likewise and not identified the appellants. It is common knowledge that the shop keepers, who had to run their business do not take the shop keepers, who had to run their business do not take risk to identify the assailants that they feel scared and due to fear, do not dare to depose against such dare devils. Even though Subhash Gupta has not identified the appellants still then, from his testimony, the factum of incident and substratum of the prosecution story stands fairly established. 24. PW 9 Hukam Singh Meena aged 20 years deposed that on the day of the incident, he was a student and was residing in Rajasthan Vidya Mandir Hostel Neem Ka Thana. On that day, at about 5.30 PM. he alongwith PW 10 Mahesh Meena had gone to the betel shop of Gopal Meena (PW 12), which was situated near the place of incident. All of a sudden they heard the noise and saw that about 10-12 persons armed with farsi, axe and lathi etc. On that day, at about 5.30 PM. he alongwith PW 10 Mahesh Meena had gone to the betel shop of Gopal Meena (PW 12), which was situated near the place of incident. All of a sudden they heard the noise and saw that about 10-12 persons armed with farsi, axe and lathi etc. were hotly chasing Mahendra I Meena, who in order to save his life tried to enter into Bajrang General Store, that I appellant Mahadev caught hold of the collar of Mahendra from his back side and I dragged him towards Bhudoli road. He stated that appellants Deshraj, Mahesh I and Karan Singh Were armed with farsi. Prakash, Om Prakash and Shaitan Singh I had axes and appellant Maha Singh alias Mahadev was armed with an iron rod Appellant Deshraj gave a farsi blow on the right side of head while appellant Karan 11 Singh dealt Farsi blow on the left side of the head of Mahendra. Appellant Mahesh I Kumar gave him Farsi blow on the head that thereupon Mahendra (deceased) fell I down, appellant Shaitan Singh dealt an axe blow on his lip while appellants I Prakash and Om Prakash inflicted axe blows on the face of Mahendra Meena. I Appellant Mahadev pierced pointed iron rod in the cheek of Mahendra that 4-5 I other assailants, who were armed with lathi and iron rod also belaboured I Mahendra and caused injuries on his head, arm, shoulder and chest. The I assailants caused multiple injuries to Mahendra for about 4-5 minutes and taking I him to be dead fled away towards the village Godavas on the Khetri road. He I stated that at that time, PWs Nandram, and Suresh were purchasing vegetables nearby, who had also witnessed the said incident. He told that Hostel Warden I Rohitas was also there, at a distance of about 4-5 paces. He told that when he I alongwith other eye witnesses arrived there and asked the appellants not to cause injuries to Mahendra, they threatened and told them that anybody who would come to rescue shall have also the same fate. Therefore, due to fear they kept standing there. He stated that after 4-5 minutes when a tempo came from the side of Chhawani, PWs Rohits, Suresh and Mahesh took injured Mahendra to the hospital. This witness has correctly identified the appellants in the trial court. Therefore, due to fear they kept standing there. He stated that after 4-5 minutes when a tempo came from the side of Chhawani, PWs Rohits, Suresh and Mahesh took injured Mahendra to the hospital. This witness has correctly identified the appellants in the trial court. In his cross examination, he admitted that near the betal shop of Gopal, the shop of sugar cane juice was also situated there. He deposed that all the assailants had not muffled their face when confronted with portion A to B of Ex.D. 3 to the effect I that few of the assailants had covered their faces, he denied to have given such a I statement. He told that in his police statement Ex.D. 3 he had informed that PWs I Nandram and Suresh were also present there. He deposed that he neither bears enemity with the appellants nor is related to deceased This witness has also been grilled at length but he has valiantly withstood the test of cross examination and his testimony has remained unshattered. We do not find any material improvement or substantial inconsistency in the testimony of this witness. His names finds place in the F.I.R. In our considered opinion, he is a trustworthy witness. 25. PW 10 Mahesh Meena, aged 18 years, is also a student. He has substantially corroborated the testimony of PW 9 Hukam Singh. He has given specific overt acts of each and every appellant and the same also finds mention in his police statement Ex.D. 3, dates 12/4/91. He stated that he alongwith PW Rohitash had taken Mahendra in a tempo to the hospital, where the doctor administered an injection and gave first aid, Mahendra remained for about 10-15 minutes in the hospital and that since his condition was precarious, the doctor advised them to take him to Jaipur. He stated that after hiring a Maruti Van he and Rohitas alongwith injured Mahendra proceeded for Jaipur but in the way near village Chala, Mahendra breathed his last and as such, they took his dead body back to Mandi Hospital, Neem Ka Thana from where the doctor sent his dead body for post mortem to Govt. Hospital Chhawani Neem Ka Thana. In his cross examination, he stated that since Mahendra had become unconscious, the doctors did not have any conversation with him. Hospital Chhawani Neem Ka Thana. In his cross examination, he stated that since Mahendra had become unconscious, the doctors did not have any conversation with him. He admitted that he was also residing in the Scheduled Tribe Hostel, that at the time of the incident, he was standing about 8-10 paces away form the place of incident. He categorically denied the suggestion that after watching the incident, he had gone to the hostel and informed Rohitash about the same. He deposed that Rohitash was also present there and had witnessed the incident. 26. We do not find any force in the contention of Shri Bajwa that since in police statements of these witnesses, name of the other eye witnesses have not been mentioned, and as such these eye witnesses were not present there and that their testimony lacks reliance. 27. PW 10 Mahesh has also deposed that deceased Mahendra was not related to him or that he bore animosity with any of the appellants. He emphatically refuted the suggestion that he had not witnessed the incident or that the appellants were not the assailants. Simply because this witness belongs to Meena community, it cannot be held that he is unreliable witness, specially when his name also finds mention in the first information report. 28. PW 11 Gopal Meena deposed that on the ill fated day, he was on his betel shop, which is situated just near the place of incident, that at about 5 PM. PW Mahesh and Hukam Singh came to his shop for taking betel, that they heard noise and saw that Mahesh was running and was being chased by 10-12 boys including appellants and 4-5 others. Appellants Deshraj, Mahesh Kumar and Karan Singh were armed with farsis, while appellants Prakash, Om Prakash and Shaitan Singh had axes with them and appellant Maha Singh was carrying an iron rod. When Mahendra tried to enter into the grocery shop, appellant Mahadev alias Maha Singh caught hold of his collar from backside and took him towards Bhudoli road, that appellant Deshraj dealt a farsi blow on the right side of the head of Mahendra while Karan Singh gave farsi blow on the left side of his head and appellant Mahesh gave farsi blow on his neck; that thereupon Mahendra fell down. Appellant Shaitan Singh dealt an axe blow on the cheek of Mahendra, while appellant Prakash gave axe blow on the right side of his forehead while Om Prakash gave axe blow on his head. Appellant Mahadev inserted and iron rod on his right cheek Other assailants belaboured Mahendra by lathis and Saria. He deposed that PWs Nandram and Suresh, who were standing near a vegetable vendor's "Rehri'' (Thela) and PW 4 Rohitas Balai, Hostel Warden, had also witnessed the said incident. This witness has also categorically stated that the appellants had not muffled their faces and that in his police statement Ex.D. 8, he did not state that 3-4 assailants had covered their faces. However in his police statement, it has been mentioned that except 3-4 persons, other assailants had not covered their faces. He denied suggestion that he alongwith other PWs had formed a group and that he used to threaten the shop keepers and persons of the locality. This witness has also been subjected to lengthy cross examination but his testimony has remained in tact. He has fully corroborated the testimony of PW 9 Hukam Singh and PW Mahesh Meena and other eye witnesses. We do not find any valid reason to disbelieve his statement. 29. PW 12 Nandram Meena, aged 17 years, is a resident of village Tthaherewali Dhani. He stated that at the time of the incident, he was purchasing vegetable on the Bhudoli road from a Rehri (Thela), which was standing opposite Bajrang General Store. Suresh was also purchasing vegetable from there. He noticed a commotion and saw that Mahendra was running and was being hotly chased by 10-12 boys of village Godawas. The accused appellants and 4-5 other persons whose names he did not know were amongst those boys. He has fully corroborated sworn testimony of PW 2 Suresh and stated that the appellants had belaboured Mahendra by farsi, axe and Saria. He stated that he was also a hosteler. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of the alleged incident. We have carefully gone through his statement and in our considered opinion, his testimony does not appear to be tainted. 30. The presence of the afore mentioned eye witnesses was quite natural. They were not chance witnesses. They belonged to different villages and were not related to the deceased. We have carefully gone through his statement and in our considered opinion, his testimony does not appear to be tainted. 30. The presence of the afore mentioned eye witnesses was quite natural. They were not chance witnesses. They belonged to different villages and were not related to the deceased. We do not find any material improvement, or substantial contradictions or significant inconsistencies in their statements. It stands firmly established that appellants alongwith 4-5 others were armed with deadly weapons, that they had mercilessly inflicted multiple injuries to/Mahendra in broad day light in a crowded locality and that shop keepers became scared and had put down shutters of their shops. Hence simply because, these eye witnesses did not intervene and try to rescue Mahendra, it cannot be said that their conduct was unnatural or that they were not present at the time of incident. All these eye witnesses knew the appellants. They previously had named them in their police statements and also identified them in the court during trial. They do not bear any enemity with the appellants. They are also not related to the deceased. In such circumstances, the contention of Shri Bajwa that these alleged eye witnesses were chance or interested witnesses, does not appear to be based on any evidence recorded in this case and the same is hereby repelled. 31. The testimony of these eye witnesses stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence. PW 15 Dr. C.M. Agrawal, who conducted post mortem of the deceased, has proved the report of autopsy Ex.R 20 and stated that he had found four incised wounds (injury Nos. 1 to 4) on the head of the deceased and incised wound on the right cheek and incised wound on the lower top of the cheek with multiple fractures of lower jaw with dislocation and another incised wound from left zygomatic area to posteriorly auricle cutting the pinna slightly, besides other injuries mentioned in post mortem report Ex.P. 20. He has stated that incised wounds sustained by the deceased could have been caused by farsi and axe and that the injury Nos. 1 to 7 individually and cummulatively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has pleaded his ignorance about the name of doctor who had initially attended and given medical first aid to Mahendra on 10/4/91 in the Mandi Hospital, Neem Ka Thana. 1 to 7 individually and cummulatively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has pleaded his ignorance about the name of doctor who had initially attended and given medical first aid to Mahendra on 10/4/91 in the Mandi Hospital, Neem Ka Thana. He has stated that he did not know that Dr. D.S. Meena, who was posted in Mandi Hospital, was the brother in-law of the deceased or not? In our opinion, PW 15 Dr. C.M. Agrawal is a witness worthy of credence and he was substantially corroborated the ocular evidence. 32. PW14 Man Prakash SHO PS Neem ka Thana deposed that on 10/4/91 Suresh submitted a written report Ex.P2 before him on which he drew the formal FIR Ex.P3 and sent the same to the Circle Officer for investigation because the case was also registered under Section 3(2) & (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He told that PW2 Suresh had come along to the police station and that he alongwith the Circle Officer had gone to the spot. He stated that he knew Mahendra. Who has history sheeter of Neem ka Thana. 33. PW 17 Durgadutt Jat deposed 10/4/91 he was the Circle Officer cum Dy.S.R Neem Ka Thana, that the investigation of this case was entrusted to him and that on the same day. he rushed to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, he prepared the site plan Ex.P1 and memo of site plan Ex.P21. He also lifted the sample of blood stained soil as also control sample vide seizure memo Ex.Ps. 4&5 from the place of incident. He stated that he also recorded statements of PWs Suresh and Gopal Exs. D1 and D8. respectively on the same day. On 11/4/91 he prepared inquest report Ex.P6 and recorded the opinion of the Panchas vide Ex.P 7 and also seized blood stained garments of the deceased vide seizure memo Ex.P 8. From 12th to 19th April. 1991 he arrested the appellants vide arrest memoes Exs. R 22 to R 26. He admitted that the place of incident was situated in a crowded locality, where number of shops are situated. He categorically denied the suggestion that the shop of PW Gopal, the place of incident was not visible. 34. PW16 Banshidhar Aswal Dy. 1991 he arrested the appellants vide arrest memoes Exs. R 22 to R 26. He admitted that the place of incident was situated in a crowded locality, where number of shops are situated. He categorically denied the suggestion that the shop of PW Gopal, the place of incident was not visible. 34. PW16 Banshidhar Aswal Dy. SP stated that in April, 1991 he was Circle Officer Sikar and that on the direction of the SP Sikar, he reached Neem Ka Thana in the evening and conducted further investigation in the case. He stated that on 12/4/91, he recorded statements of Manohar Nai and Rohitas and that thereafter on 12/4/91, the investigation of the case was handed over to the Additional SP Sikar. 35. PW 18 Ratan Lal, Addl. SP Sikar has proved various disclosure statements made by the accused appellants under section 27 Evidence Act and their respective recovery memoes pertaining to the recoveries of weapons of offence. Since none of those weapons was stained with blood, the learned trial Judge has rightly held that the alleged recoveries were meaningless. In his cross examination, he stated that he recorded statements of Khetaram. Puroshottam, Bajranglal and Ramjilal who were the shop keepers situated near the place of incident and that they had stated that few of the assailants had muffled their faces, while the faces of other assailants were not covered. Statements of other prosecution witnesses are of formal character. 36. Now we advert to the rival contentions made before us. The alleged incident took place at about 5 PM. on 10/4/91. As per statement of PW2 Suresh, he scribed the written report Ex.P2 at about 7 PM. just outside Mandi hospital in a Medical Store and submitted the same to PW 14 SHO PS Neem ka Thana. He stated that the injured Mahendra was taken to Mandi Hospital, where he remained for about half an hour and that thereafter on the advise of the doctor, the deceased was placed in a Maruti Van and PWs Rohitas and Mahesh had proceeded towards Jaipur and that he went to the police station to lodge a report. But the statement of this witness cannot be read in isolation. But the statement of this witness cannot be read in isolation. PW4 Rohitas and PW10 Mahesh have specifically stated that when Mahendra succumbed to his injuries near village Challa, they returned and brought back his dead body Mandi, hospital and that thereafter they had asked Suresh to lodge the report at poljpe station Neem Ka Thana. It will be pertinent to mention here that no question was put to PW2 Suresh as to whether he knew about the death of Mahendra or not while submitting written report Ex.P 2. There is no reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of PW4 Rohitas and PW10 Mahesh Meena wherein they have specifically stated that after they had brought back the dead body of Mahendra and thereafter they had asked Suresh to lodge a report at police station Neem Ka Thana. In view of this, the contention of Shri Bajwa that Suresh did not know about death of Mahendra and that since in written report Ex.P2 it has been mentioned that the appellants had murdered Mahendra, the irresistible inference is that the written report Ex.P2 was ante dated and the same had come into existence most probably in the morning of 11/4/91. dose not appear to be sound. Rather such an argument is unfounded and against the evidence on record. 37. PW2 Suresh has deposed that he knew the appellants and the eye witnesses, whose names find place in his written report Ex.P2. Therefore, there was no occasion for PW2 Suresh to have enquired about their names and parentage. F.I.R. Ex.P 3 was drawn on 10/4/91 at 7PM. and the same was sent to the Magistrate on the next day, which he received at about 4.45 PM. No question has been put either to PW 14 Man Prakash or to any other investigating officer about the alleged delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate. F.I.R. Ex.P 3 was drawn on 10/4/91 at 7PM. and the same was sent to the Magistrate on the next day, which he received at about 4.45 PM. No question has been put either to PW 14 Man Prakash or to any other investigating officer about the alleged delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate. As mentioned earlier, in this case, the F.I.R. was drawn by PW 14 Man Prakash but since the case was also registered under Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC/ST (prevention of Atrocities) Act, the investigation could only be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Dy.S.P Accordingly the investigation was handed over to PW 17 Durga Dutt Dy.SP Neem Ka Thana, who conducted the initial investigation, prepared site plan and memo of site plan Exs P1 and P 21 and also seizure memoes of the blood stained soil and the control sample and also recorded police statements of PW 2 Suresh, PW11 Gopal on the same day i.e. 10/4/91. No question was put to him about the alleged delay in despatch to FIR to the Magistrate. In our considered opinion. There was was no inordinate delay in sending the F.I.R. to the concerned Magistrate and on this count no dent is caused to the prosecution case. 38. Shri Bajwa has cited Surjan v. State of Rajasthan,(1994 R.Cr.C. 403 ). wherein the F.I.R. was lodged after consultation with legal expertise, there was delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate, and the delay was unexplained. It was held that such a delay gave reasonable apprehension that the written report had been made with a premeditated cool mind and had been ante dated and ante timed, by incorporating names of the eye witnesses when there was no eye witness. Apparently, such are not the facts of the Case on hand, where the F,I.R. has been lodged promptly. Had the F.I.R been ante dated or had it been a post investigation document, then specific overt acts of individual appellant could have been incorporated therein. But in the F.I.R., specific overt act of individual appellant has not been mentioned. This fact, itself, goes to show that the F.I.R. was lodged promptly and without delay and deliberation, and there was no occasion for any embellishment therein. 39. But in the F.I.R., specific overt act of individual appellant has not been mentioned. This fact, itself, goes to show that the F.I.R. was lodged promptly and without delay and deliberation, and there was no occasion for any embellishment therein. 39. In Arjun and others v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the incident took place at 11 A.M. on 27/11/88, the F.I.R. was lodged at 2 PM. on the same day, while copy thereof reached the Magistrate on the following day. It was held that the despatch of the F.I.R. was not belated and the same was not fatal to the prosecution. 40. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, in our considered opinion, the F.I.R is neither ante dated nor it is post investigation document nor there was any inordinate delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate. 41. In the instant case, shop keepers of the locality namely Khetaram, Purshottam. and Bajrang were examined by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.RC., who stated that the assailants had covered their faces. The prosecution, therefore, did not examine them. On the other hand, the prosecution has examined as many as seven eye witnesses. PW3 Subhash Gupta, who was owner of Bajrang Grocery shop, though did not identify the appellants has amply proved the factum of the incident. PWs Suresh, Mahesh Meena. Gopal Meena. Nandram and Hukam singh were not chance witnesses. Their presence at the time and place of the occurrence was quite natural. They were not interested witnesses and, therefore, their testimony inspires confidence. These witnesses have fully proved the prosecution case. In such circumstances for non- examination of Khetaram. Purshottam and Bajrang, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. Similarly, as per statements of PWs Suresh, Rohitas & Mahesh due to the grievous injuries sustained by Mahendra Meena, the latter was not in a position to speak. Therefore, non-production of the doctor, who had given medical first aid to Mahendra Meena in the Mandi Hospital, Neem Ka Thana, is also not fatal to the prosecution. 42. Similarly, as per statements of PWs Suresh, Rohitas & Mahesh due to the grievous injuries sustained by Mahendra Meena, the latter was not in a position to speak. Therefore, non-production of the doctor, who had given medical first aid to Mahendra Meena in the Mandi Hospital, Neem Ka Thana, is also not fatal to the prosecution. 42. We do also not find any force in the contention of Shri Bajwa that in this case, police statements of the alleged witnesses were recorded with undue delay, which makes the prosecution case doubtful, Shri Bajwa has relied upon the decision in Babu Maulana v. State of Rajasthan (1986 RLR 573) , wherein it has been observed that in a murder case, it is the duty of investigating officer to record statements of the witnesses in the same night of the incident and that the delay in recording such statements makes the prosecution case doubtful. With utmost respect, we would like to observe that no hard and fast rule can be formulated directing the investigating officer to .record the statement of the witnesses on the same day. It all depends upon a garden variety of factors and peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. In the case on hand, the F.I.R. was registered at 7 PM. on 10.4.91 by the S.H.O. Initially investigation was conducted by PW17 Durga Dutt Dy SP on 10 and 11/4/91. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to PW 16 Banshidhar Dy.S.P. Sikar and again it was transferred to PW18 Ratanlal Addl. SR The eye witnesses Suresh & Gopal were examined under Section 161 Cr.RC. on 10/4/91, itself, while statements of other eye witnesses were recorded on 11/12/-4-91 by different investigating officers. Not a single question was put on behalf of the appellants to any of the these investigating officers about the alleged delay in recording the statements of the witnesses, nor any question was put to the eye witnesses on this count. In Babu Maulana's case (supra), there were material contradictions as to who had lodged the F.I.R., the contents of the F.I.R. were not proved by the informant, genesis of the crime was not disclosed. Material witnesses were withheld by the prosecution and it was also found that the investigation was unfair. In such circumstances, it was held that the delay in recording statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.RC.. created doubt on the prosecution case. Material witnesses were withheld by the prosecution and it was also found that the investigation was unfair. In such circumstances, it was held that the delay in recording statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.RC.. created doubt on the prosecution case. Therefore, the facts of Maulana's case (supra) are clearly distinguishable. 43. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, ( 1992 (3) SCC 106 ) there was delay of two and half months in recording statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC. It was held by the Apex Court that the delay does not invariably render the prosecution evidence doubtful though the evidence has to be scanned carefully and that each case has to be considered on its own facts and if witness is found to be natural and truthful, his evidence need not be doubted due to delay. Therefore, we do not feel impressed by the contention of Shri Bajwa that in the instant case, the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. with undue delay and that the prosecution case, therefore, becomes doubtful. 44. Another plank of argument of Shri Bajwa is that there are two sets of the prosecution witnesses. PW3 Subhash Gupta has stated that the assailants had muffled their faces and as such, he could not identify them, whereas other eye witnesses stated that*the appellants had inflicted injuries to the deceased and committed his murder. In such circumstances, the testimony of PW3, which goes in favour of the appellants should be accepted ,and another set of the witnesses who belong to the Meena community should be discarded. For this, he has placed reliance on Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab, (JT 1993 (5) SC 343) , wherein it has been observed that if there are two sets of the eye witnesses" contradicting each other and where there are many incongruities, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused appellants. We have carefully gone through the facts of Hardip Singh's case (supra) and we find that the facts of that case are at poles apart with the facts of the case on hand. Here, there are no incongruities or contradictions between the testimony of PW 3 Subhash Gupta and PW 4 Subhash Balai, on the one hand, and the statements of PWs 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12 on the other hand. Here, there are no incongruities or contradictions between the testimony of PW 3 Subhash Gupta and PW 4 Subhash Balai, on the one hand, and the statements of PWs 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12 on the other hand. Even Subhash Gupta and Rohitash have substantially proved the factum of the incident but they have not identified the appellants. On the other hand, as many as five eye witnesses namely, PWs 2, 9, 10 to 12, have categorically deposed that the appellants armed with Farsies, axe and saria had attacked upon Mahendra Meena (deceased) and belaboured him mercilessly in broad-day light in the market. As mentioned earlier, the shop keepers generally feel scared. There is ample evidence to the effect that at the time of the alleged incident, the shop keepers had put down shutters of their shops. In such circumstances, even if PW 3 Subhash Gupta and PW 4 Rohitas Balai have not identified the assailants, the sworn testimony of as many as aforesaid five eye witnesses cannot be brushed aside and over looked. From the testimony of these five eye witnesses, the prosecution case stands fully proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this argument is also foiled down. 45. It is true that in site plan Ex.R 1, the places, from where the eye witnesses had allegedly seen the incident, have not been shown, but this fact does not make the prosecution case doubtful. The site plan was drawn at the instance of PW 2 Suresh. In Tori Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (AIR 1962 SC (399) , a rough sketch map was prepared by the investigating officer on the basis of the statement made to him by the witness during the course of investigation and showing the place, where the deceased was hit and also the places, where the witnesses were at the time of incident. It was held by the Apex Court that such a sketch map was not admissible in evidence in view of the provisions contained in Section 162, Cr.PC. for it is in effect nothing more than the statement of the investigating officer that the eye witnesses had told him that the deceased was at such and such place at the time, when he was hit. for it is in effect nothing more than the statement of the investigating officer that the eye witnesses had told him that the deceased was at such and such place at the time, when he was hit. It was held that the sketch map would be admissible in evidence in so far as it indicates that the investigating officer saw himself at the place of occurrence, but any mark put on the sketch map based on the statements of the witnesses is hit by Section 162 Cr.RC. and inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, non mentioning of the place/places in the site plan Ex.P 1, from where the eye witnesses had witnessed the incident is not at all fatal tojhe prosecution case. 46. A similar view has been taken in Balkar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1988 WLC (UC) p. 578) by the Division Bench of this court, wherein it has been held that such and omission does not cast any doubt on the prosecution story. In the instant case, the investigating officer had found the blood scattered on the place of incident and he had seized the sample of the blood stained soil and control sample. This part of the site plan is admissible in evidence and*this also corroborates the testimony of PW 2 Suresh and other eye witnesses. 47. Shri Bajwa has vigorously canvassed that the alleged eye witnesses PWs 2, 9, to 12 have given a parrot like statement, which strongly suggests that they are not honest and innocent witnesses. On the other hand, they all belong to the Meena community and are interested witnesses and as such their testimony cannot be relied upon. For this, he has cited Sher Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1987 (II) RLR p. 164) , wherein there were common, similar and identical mistakes, improvements and changed versions on vital issues in the testimony of the eye witnesses and, therefore, it was held that it strongly indicated that they were not honest and reliable witnesses. But apparently, such are not the facts of the instant case. It is true that there are some minor discrepancies and omissions but those are quite natural and should not be given undue importance. In Sher Singh's case (supra), it was found that the F.I.R. was a post investigative and medico legal oriented document. But apparently, such are not the facts of the instant case. It is true that there are some minor discrepancies and omissions but those are quite natural and should not be given undue importance. In Sher Singh's case (supra), it was found that the F.I.R. was a post investigative and medico legal oriented document. It was prepared to bring it in conformity with medical opinion of doctor, who conducted the post mortem. The witnesses had deposed similar versions committing common and identical mistakes but, in the instant case, we do not find any substantial improvements made by the eye witnesses. On the other hand, their testimony has been consistent and worthy of credence. Therefore, Sher Singh's case does not render any assistance to the appellants in the case on hand 48. Shri Bajwa has urged that the deceased Mahendra was a history sheeter and many criminal cases were pending against him, that he had many enemies, therefore, this possibility cannot be ruled out that some other persons might have committed his murder and that the appellants have been falsely implicated. We are not at all impressed by this argument as it is not based on any evidence recorded in this case. On the other hand, there is voluminuous evidence in the form of statements of PWs 2, and 9 to 12 to firmly establish that the appellants alongwith 4-5 others were armed with the deadly weapon, that they formed unlawful assembly having a common object to commit the murder of Mahendra Meena and that in furtherance to the said common objects, they inflicted multiple injuries on the vital parts of the body of Mahendra in a broad day light in a crowded locality near the crossing of Khetri-Bhudoli-Mandi-Chhawani Neem Ka Thana road. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged in this case, where+n names of all the appellants find mention. Thus, there is no question of false implication of any appellant. Therefore this argument also fails. 49. Shri Bajwa has lastly submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any motive of the appellants for the murder of deceased Mahendra. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged in this case, where+n names of all the appellants find mention. Thus, there is no question of false implication of any appellant. Therefore this argument also fails. 49. Shri Bajwa has lastly submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any motive of the appellants for the murder of deceased Mahendra. It will suffice to say that the motive is a relevant fact only in cases where the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence or on the testimony of the witnesses who have enemical background against the accused, In such a case, the motive assumes importance, but when there is clear, cogent and reliable positive ocular/direct evidence against the accused, the question of motive pails into insignificance. 50. In Jarnail Singh v. State of Harayana, (1993 (1) Crimes 586) , it has been held that where positive evidence against accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance. Therefore, this argument raised on behalf of the appellants is also not tentable. 51. No other point was raised before us. 52. In our considered opinion, the learned trial Judge has discussed, analysed, and evaluated the evidence recorded in this case, in a right perspective and has not committed any error of fact or law in convicting the appellants for offence under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, IPC and, therefore, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. 53. In the premises of the above discussion, this appeal fails, and the same is hereby dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellants are hereby maintained. The appellants be informed accordingly through jail authorities.> Appeal dismissed. *******