S.M. Singhvi, P.P. Honble GUPTA, J.–The abovementioned two appeals have been directed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur on 6th August, 1980 whereby he convicted accused Purkha Ram, Sukh Ram, Bhanwarlal, Geega Ram and Mangilal under Secs. 147 and 304 Part II IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo two years imprisonment under the first count and 4 years rigorous impri-sonment under the second count. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused have preferred appeal No. 359/80 questioning their conviction. The State of Rajasthan has filed appeal No. 353/81 challenging the acquittal of the accused under Sec. 302 IPC. Since both the matters have arisen out of one and the same judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by thiscommon judgment. (2). The case relates to an occurrence which took place on 29th August, 1979 at about 1.30 p.m. in village Anawas in which Mohan Ram Bawari sustained injuries and he died after some time. The prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR Ex.P/4 lodged by Hema Ram, brother of the deceased, was that he was informed by hisbrother Girdhari that Mohan had been beaten by Mangia, Pukhiya, Bhanwarlal. Geega and Sukhram by lathis in the field of Mohan Ram and the accused have taken away Mohaniya, and that the occurrence was witnessed by Ram Singh and Shiv Ram. After preliminary interrogation, the police registered a case under Secs. 323 and 364 IPC. When the police reached the spot, dead body was found lying near a `Nadi on which the police converted the case into Sec. 302 IPC. Inquest was also held, site inspection was made, witnesses were interrogated and accused were arrested. The post- mortem examination was conducted on 30.8.79 by Dr. N.R. Bhandari (PW 7). After the completion of usual investigation, the police submittedchargesheet against the accused persons. (3). Charges under Secs. 147 and 302, in the alternative, 302/149 and 201 IPC were framed against all the five accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Accused in their statements under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. denied accusation. They stated that they have been falsely implicatedin this case. Accused did not lead evidence in defence. The learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments of both the parties. He held that Mohan Ram had met homicidal death. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Accused in their statements under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. denied accusation. They stated that they have been falsely implicatedin this case. Accused did not lead evidence in defence. The learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments of both the parties. He held that Mohan Ram had met homicidal death. He further held that accused were the persons who had inflicted lathi blows to Mohan Ram. According to him the accused had not intended to cause the death of Mohan Ram. Holding that the accused had the knowledge that by theiract they would be causing the death of Mohan Ram, he convicted all the accused under Sec. 304 Pt.II IPC besides Sec. 147 IPC. Accused were acquitted under Sec. 201 IPC. (4). We have heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. (5). The contention of Mr.Singhvi, learned Public Prosecutor was that the accused had inflicted multiple injuires to Mohan Ram and as a result of those injuries Mohan Ram had died, and so the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused under Sec. 302 IPC. (6). The post mortem report Ex.P/9 indicates that there were following exter-nal injuries on the person of Mohan Ram which were ante mortem in nature : 1) Bruise 1" round on left occipital parietal region. 2) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on superior aspect of left shoulder. 3) Abrasion 2" x 1/2" on upper 1/3rd of left fore-arm on pastro lateral aspect. 4) Bruise 3" x 2" on postero-lateral aspect of lower 1/2 of left fore-arm and having fracture on both bones and dislocation of left wrist. 5) Bruise 2" x 2" on back of right elbow joint and having fracture of upper ulna. 6) Laceration 1" x 1/3" x 1/3" on postero-medial aspect of middle of right fore-arm and fracture of ulna. 7) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on dorsal of right index finger. 8) Bruise 2" x 1-1/2" on external aspect of right ankle joint and fracture of right tibia. 9) Bruise 4" x 2" on external aspect of upper 1/3 of left thigh. 10) Bruise 2" x 2" on left lower 1/3rd of left leg on postero-lateral aspect. 11) Bruise 8" x 6" on right glutal region. 12) Bruise 4 " x 2" on left glutal region. 13) Bruise 12" x 5" on right side of back extending to lateral aspect. (7). Dr. 10) Bruise 2" x 2" on left lower 1/3rd of left leg on postero-lateral aspect. 11) Bruise 8" x 6" on right glutal region. 12) Bruise 4 " x 2" on left glutal region. 13) Bruise 12" x 5" on right side of back extending to lateral aspect. (7). Dr. Bhandari has deposed that on opening the body he found contusion over the posterior lateral surface of liver. It is obvious from the statement of Dr. Bhandari that no t any one injury was such which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause death. There was only one externalinjury caused on the occipital parietal region of the deceased. It was bruise in round shape which was simple in nature. Regarding the internal injury found on the victims liver, the medical officer has not been able to say with certainty that it was the result of external injury No. 13 which was on the back. The fractures found were on the forearms and right tibia which are not vital parts of the body. The medical officer has admitted in clear terms that the fractures mentioned in injuries nos. 4,5,6 & 7were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to the medical officer the death of the victim was caused due to shock. There were five assailants. The accused did not choose to inflict a single blow with force on the vital parts of the body. In view of this medical evidence, the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the accused had not intended to causethe death of Mohan Ram. Consequently, the acquittal of the accused under Sec. 302 IPC is well merited. (8). Mr. Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the accused assailed the testimony of the three eye witnesses on the following grounds:- i) The conduct of three eye witnesses was far from natural as they did not intervene in the occurrence and went away to their houses even seeing that a man was mercilessly beaten. ii) In the site plan and inquest memo it was not stated that the persons named in the FIR had seen the occurrence and they were standing at a particular place. iii) No blood was found in the field of Mohan Ram which indicates that the occurrence had not taken place at that place. ii) In the site plan and inquest memo it was not stated that the persons named in the FIR had seen the occurrence and they were standing at a particular place. iii) No blood was found in the field of Mohan Ram which indicates that the occurrence had not taken place at that place. iv) The police did not interrogate the witnesses in the night though they were available and the witnesses of their own also did not tell the police that they had seen the occurrence which indicates that they had not seen the occurrence and they were introduced as eye witnesses after initial investigation. In this connection, it was also pointed out that the FIR was not forwarded to the Magistrate forthwith and it was sent on 2nd day i.e. 31.8.79. v) According to Girdhari Ram, he had seen the accused taking Mohan Ram towards the `Dhani of Bhanwarlal yet in the FIR Ex.P/4 which was lodged by Hema Ram on the information given by Girdhari Ram, this fact was not mentioned and on the contrary it was stated that the whereabouts of Mohan Ram were not known. (9). Mr. Singhvi, on the other hand, tried to support the judgment of the trialCourt. (10). It has come in the statement of Girdhari Ram (PW 12) that he saw the accused persons giving beating to Mohan Ram by lathis and that he witnessed the occurrence from a distance of about 5 to 6 `Pawandas but he did not intervene and rushed to the `Dhani of Hema Ram and informed him about the occurrence andthereafter went away in the village. Ram Singh (PW 5) has deposed that he had seen occurrence from a distance of about 10 to 15 steps away but he did not intervene because he apprehended the trouble to himself and thereafter he went away to his house. Shiv Ram (PW 6) has deposed that he had seen the occurrence from a distance of 50 to 60 `Pawandas and he even implored the accused not tobeat Mohan Ram but they did not stop beating and thereafter he went away in the village. (11). There was nothing unnatural in the conduct of the three witnesses when they actively did not intervene in the occurrence. It is obvious that Shiv Ram and Girdhari Ram had requested the accused not to beat Mohan Ram. (11). There was nothing unnatural in the conduct of the three witnesses when they actively did not intervene in the occurrence. It is obvious that Shiv Ram and Girdhari Ram had requested the accused not to beat Mohan Ram. Girdhari Ram was threatened by the accused that if he intervened, he would also be beaten. The assailants were five in numbers having lathis in their hands. It was natural for the three witnesses to be afraid of them. Girdhari Ram was, of course, the real brother of the deceased yet he could not take the risk of going unarmed to the accused to intervene in the beating more so when he was threatened. His conduct was most natural when he first implored the accused persons not to beat his brother and thereafter he rushed to his brother Hema Ram to inform him about the occurrence. There was also nothing unnatural in the conduct of the witnesses when they wentaway to their village. In the presence of Girdhari Ram, Mohan Ram was taken away by the accused persons, therefore, there could not be any other activity of the witnesses but to go to the village and waited for the police. (12). On the grounds that the places of standing of the witnesses at the time of the occurrence was not shown in the site inspection memo and the names ofthe eye witnesses were not mentioned in the inquest memo, the testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded. It is neither the requirement of law nor the practice to mention the names of the eye witnesses in the inquest memo. The inquest is held under Sec. 174, Cr.P.C. It is required to be held when the death occurs otherwise than natural course. The requirement of law is that the wounds, fractu-res, bruises and injuries found on he body and the weapon by which such injuries appeared to have been inflicted should be mentioned in the Inquest memo. Therefore, on the ground that in the inquest memo, names of the eye witnesses are not mentioned, the evidence of the three eye witnesses cannot be seen with suspicion. (13). So, also, it is not necessary to indicate in the site plan the places from where the witnesses had seen the occurrence. Therefore, on the ground that in the inquest memo, names of the eye witnesses are not mentioned, the evidence of the three eye witnesses cannot be seen with suspicion. (13). So, also, it is not necessary to indicate in the site plan the places from where the witnesses had seen the occurrence. As a matter of fact, when such points are indicated, it would mean that the witnesses had informed the police about such places and that would amount to statement of witnesses to the police under Sec. 161, Cr.P.C. Such statements are hit by Sec. 162, Cr.P.C. as has been held by theHonble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Narain vs. State (1) and Tori Singh vs. State of UP (2). As such, on the ground that the places of the standing of the witnesses have not been indicated in the site plan, the testimony of the witnesses cannot be seen with suspicion. (14). It has come in the statement of Girdhari Ram (PW 12) that blood wasoozing from the injuries of Mohan Ram and blood had fallen on the ground. Shanker Lal (PW 13) SHO, however, did not find blood at the spot. A look at the injuries will show that there was only one lacerated wound found on the person of Mohan Ram. Therefore, there were chances of oozing of very small quantity of blood from the injuries. The lacerated wound was also of the dimension of 1/3 x 1/3 inch. Not muchquantity of blood could come out from this injury. It seems that Girdhari Ram noticed that blood was coming out of the injury and therefore, he has deposed that blood had also fallen on the ground. But there were little chances of falling of the blood at the place of occurrence. In any case, if at all some blood was there, it might not have been noticed by the Investigating Officer because of the crop. This factalso cannot be lost sight of that it was rainy season. It is possible that there were some drops of rainy water during night which washed away the little bit of blood which had fallen there. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in observing that the absence of the blood has no material effect and does not diminish the value of direct and positive evidence of the three eye witnesses. (15). In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in observing that the absence of the blood has no material effect and does not diminish the value of direct and positive evidence of the three eye witnesses. (15). It has come in the statement of Shiv Ram (PW 6) that police was there in the village in the night and he was also with the police but he did not tell about the occurrence to the police. Ram Singh (PW 5) has also deposed that police came in the evening but he did not tell anything to the police in the night. On the basis of this part of the statements of the witnesses it was argued that had the witnesses seen the occurrence, they would have informed the police immediately after the police arrived in the village. In our opinion, there is no merit in this contention. The police reached the spot in the night. The first task before the police was to locate Mohan Ram; which was done by the police and after locating the dead body the SHO went away to the police station. The investigation started at 7 a.m. on 30.8.79. Ram Singh was interrogated at 12. According to Shanker Lal in the early hours he was busy with preparing the inquest memo and site inspection. In the circumstances that the discovery of the dead body was the first task before the police officer and it was night time, there was nothing wrong with the Investigating Officerwhen he interrogated witnesses next day. The witnesses are rustic villagers. It cannot be expected from them to force the police to record their statements immediately after the police reached in the village. Both the witnesses were with the police and they were watching the work done by the police and therefore, they could wait till the investigating officer was free from other work. There was nothingunnatural in the conduct of the witnesses when they did not volunteer in the night to give their statements. It is significant to point out that the names of the witnesses were mentioned in the FIR Ex.P/4 which was lodged just within 5 hours of the occurrence. (16). The FIR reached the court of the Magistrate on 31.8.79. Shankerlal (PW13) has deposed that he had forwarded the FIR Ex.P/20 on 29.8.79. There is despatch number with date 29.8.79 on the FIR Ex.P/20. (16). The FIR reached the court of the Magistrate on 31.8.79. Shankerlal (PW13) has deposed that he had forwarded the FIR Ex.P/20 on 29.8.79. There is despatch number with date 29.8.79 on the FIR Ex.P/20. It is, thus, obvious that the SHO did forward the FIR to the Magistrate immediately after it was recorded. The endorsement `m to `n on the FIR Ex.P/20 indicates that Achaldan FC had produced this FIR before the Magistrate. Obviously some delay was caused in taking the FIR to theMagistrate but this by itself does not render the prosecution case doubtful. All the three eye witnesses have stood well the test of cross examination. It may be that Girdhari Ram happens to be the real brother of the deceased and Shiv Ram is his cousin but nothing can be said against Ram Singh (PW 5) who is of different community. His field was situate in the North of the field of Mohan Ram, therefore,presence of Ram Singh was natural at that place. It has come in the statement of Ram Singh that accused Mangilal had prosecuted him in a case but the witness has made it clear that in that case the parties had arrived at a compromise. The suggestion that that case was still pending was emphatically denied by the witness. Accused has not brought anything on record to show that that case was still pen-ding. It is, thus, obvious that Ram Singh had no axe to grind against the accused persons. There is, absolutely no reason to discard the testimony of Ram Singh. Once we accept the evidence of eye witnesses as reliable, this fact has no material effect on the case that the FIR was not sent to the Magistrate forthwith. (17). The facts of the case of Laloo vs. State of Rajasthan (3) relied upon byMr. Singh were entirely different. In that case it was noticed that FIR was sent to the Magistrate after inordinate delay of 8 days and no explanation whatsoever was given by the prosecution. In the instant case, it has been seen that the FIR was forwarded to the Magistrate on the second day. Besides that, in that case there were many other infirmities in the prosecution case. (18). In the case of Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan (4) cited by Mr. In the instant case, it has been seen that the FIR was forwarded to the Magistrate on the second day. Besides that, in that case there were many other infirmities in the prosecution case. (18). In the case of Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan (4) cited by Mr. Singh, it has been observed that delay in sending FIR is not always fatal to the prosecution. In the instant case, as we have already seen that the prosecution has explained the delay, therefore, this ruling does not help the accused person in any manner. (19). In the statement of Girdhari Ram it has come that he had seen the accu-sed taking Mohan Ram towards the `Dhani of Bhanwarlal accused. This fact is not stated in the FIR Ex.P/4 lodged by Hema Ram though Hema Ram (PW4) has admitted that Girdhari Ram did tell him that accused had taken Mohan Ram towards the `Dhani of Bhanwarlal. In the cross-examination of Hema Ram it has not been asked as to why he did not mention this fact in the FIR. Had such a ques- tion been asked, Hema Ram could explain in what circumstances he omitted to state this fact in the FIR. It is possible that Hema Ram forgot to mention this fact in the FIR. In our opinion, on the ground that a fact which was informed by the eye witness to the first informant was not mentioned by the latter in the FIR, the evidence of the eye witnesses does not become unworthy of credence more so when explanation of the first informant has not been called for this omission. (20). On a careful consideration of the statements of the three eye witnesses, PW 5 Ram Singh, PW 6 Shiv Ram and PW 12 Girdhari Ram, we are of the view that they are reliable witnesses and by their testimony it is fully established that the fiveaccused had given beatings to Mohan Ram by lathis in his field. The learned Sessions Judge has not erred in convicting the accused on the basis of this evidence. (21). Mr. Doongar Singh, in the alternative, contended that the offence did not travel beyond Sec. 325 IPC. We are unable to agree with Mr. Singh. It is not a caseof single blow. As many as 13 injuries were caused to Mohan Ram. Out of them 4 were the grievous hurts. (21). Mr. Doongar Singh, in the alternative, contended that the offence did not travel beyond Sec. 325 IPC. We are unable to agree with Mr. Singh. It is not a caseof single blow. As many as 13 injuries were caused to Mohan Ram. Out of them 4 were the grievous hurts. The deceased was unarmed. Not only that the accused inflicted injuries, they also took him away and put him at the `Nadi. The shock was bound to occur because multiple injuries were caused to the deceased. The accused might not have intended to cause the death of Mohan Ram but they hadcertainly the knowledge that their act could result into the death of Mohan Ram. Therefore, the accused have been convicted under Sec. 304 Pt. II IPC. (22). All the five accused had gone to the field of Mohan Ram having lathis in their hands and they had taken part in the beatings. It is obvious that they were members of unlawful assembly and force was used by them. The conviction of theaccused under Sec. 147 IPC is well merited. (23). Mr. Singh pointing out that the occurrence took place in 1979, and about 18 years have passed away and one of the accused who was 55 years of age at that time is more than 70 years at present submitted that the period already undergone by the accused should be considered sufficient in the circumstances of the case.Mr.Singhvi did not seriously object to the request made by the learned counsel for the accused but submitted that amount of fine should be substantially increased and that amount should be given as compensation to the LRs of the deceased. (24). The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Kishan and State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh (5) observed that all the Courts should exercise the po-wer of awarding compensation to the victim of offence, conferred by Sec. 357 Cr.P.C. liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. (25). In the case of Dr. Jacob George vs. State of Kerala (6) the Apex Court reiterated the observations made in the case of Hari Kishan (supra) and ordered the payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh reducing substantive sentence of imprisonment.The Court ordered that the amount of Rs. 1 lakh shall be given to the victim. (25). In the case of Dr. Jacob George vs. State of Kerala (6) the Apex Court reiterated the observations made in the case of Hari Kishan (supra) and ordered the payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh reducing substantive sentence of imprisonment.The Court ordered that the amount of Rs. 1 lakh shall be given to the victim. So also in the case of Baldeo Singh vs. State of Punjab (7), the Court awarded compensation in a case under Sec. 304 Part I. (26). In the instant case the accused have remained in prison for about a year. Normally, this period is not adequate for the offence under Sec. 304 Pt. II IPC. How-ever, keeping in view the fact that 18 years have elapsed since the occurrence took place and one of the accused being in his old age, we take a lenient view in the matter. In our opinion, the period of sentence already undergone and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each will be adequate sentence in this case. (27). Consequently, Appeal No. 359/80 is partly allowed. While maintainingconviction of the accused persons under Sec. 304 Pt. II IPC and 147 IPC, the substantive sentence of imprisonment under both the counts is reduced to the period already under gone by them. The accused are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 each under Sec. 304 Pt.II IPC. In default of payment of fine, each of them shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years. The amount of fine, Rs. 50,000, if realised, shall be given to the LRs of Mohan Ram as compensation. The accused are given one months time to deposit the amount of fine, failing which the learned Sessions Judge shall take steps to arrest the accused person/s to send him/them to prison. Appeal No. 253/81 being devoid of merit is dismissed.