Judgment 1. The appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.6.1986 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions. Trial No. 130 of 1987 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 8.5.1980 one Sheo Dhari Chaudhari along with his nephew Gauri Shankar Chaudhary, Ram Kishun Chaudhary, Raju Ram Pal land Ram Roop, the Chaukidar took the dead body of Raudi Chaudhary on a bullock cart to the police station and lodged F.I.R. at about 6 p.m.. stating therein that yesterday i.e. on 7.5.1980 he was returning to his house from Bhagalpur Kachahh and reached Goradih Hatia on way to his house where his uncle Raudi Chaudhary was selling vegetables. His nephew Gauri Shankar was with him. He saw Ganesh Chaudhary in Goradih Hatia. He, his uncle Raudi Chaudhary, his nephew Gauri Shankar Chaudhary were coming to his village Mohanpur after sun set. Ganesh Chaudhary was behind them. When they reached Kachhla field on the west the river Kadwa, Ganesh Chaudhary having Lathi caught his hand and started dragging. His uncle Raudi Chaudhary protested on which Ganesh Chaudhary abused him. His uncle asked him not to abuse on which Ganesh Chaudhary assaulted his uncle Raudi Chaudhary from the pointed portion of the Lathi on his stomach due to which he fell down and the vegetables scattered on the earth. His uncle started collecting vegetable. Ganesh against gave Lathi blow on the right side of his chest due to which he started crying. Ganesh Chaudhary thereafter fled away. He and his nephew Gauri Shankar Chaudhary with the help of Dina Yadav and others, who were behind them took Raudi Chaudhary to his hose on a cot but he died soon thereafter, in the morning he went to the Jagdishpur police station to lodge a case but since no officer was there he along with chaukidar had come to lodge a case. The motive of the occurrence was that there was dispute with Ganesh Chaudhary from before who was convicted in a case under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code in the year 1979. 3. After registering the first information report, investigation was taken up. The motive of the occurrence was that there was dispute with Ganesh Chaudhary from before who was convicted in a case under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code in the year 1979. 3. After registering the first information report, investigation was taken up. The police visited the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report, seized the broken piece of earthen pot and examined the witnesses. On completion of the investigation chargeshdet was submitted. The Court on receipt of the chargesheet took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of sessions for trial. 4. The defence of the appellant was that he was innocent and had not committed any offence. RaudiChaudhary died due to fall on the ground and he has been falsely implicated in the case out of enmity. The trial Court, however, convicted the appellant for the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as stated above. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 2 was declared hostile, P. W. 3 was tendered, P. W. 6 is the Investigating Officer, who submitted the chargesheet, P. W. 7 is also an Investigating Officer, who investigated the case and on transfer he handed over the charge of the case to P. W. 6, P. W. 8 is a doctor, who held post mortem over the dead body. P. W. 1, P. W. 4 and P. W. 5 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 6. The occurrence in this case is not in dispute. The wintnesses have categorically stated that Raudi Chaudhary was killed in the occurrence. The doctor P. W. 8 who held postmortem examination over the dead body had also found ante mortem injury on the person of the deceased and opined that the death was due to injury found on the person of the deceased. Thus, the death has fully been established in this case. 7. P. W. 5 is the information in the case. He was with the deceased. He is a full-fledged eye witness to the occurrence. He has stated in its evidence that he had gone to Bhagalpur Kachahri. His uncle Raudi Chaudhary, the deceased, his nephew Gauri Shankar Chaudhary P. W. 4 and many other persons had gone to Goradih Hatia. He Raudi Chaudhary, the deceased Gauri Shankar Chaudhary, P. W. 4 Dina Yadav, P. W. 2, and some others were returning to their house. He has stated in its evidence that he had gone to Bhagalpur Kachahri. His uncle Raudi Chaudhary, the deceased, his nephew Gauri Shankar Chaudhary P. W. 4 and many other persons had gone to Goradih Hatia. He Raudi Chaudhary, the deceased Gauri Shankar Chaudhary, P. W. 4 Dina Yadav, P. W. 2, and some others were returning to their house. When they reached near Kachhia field west of the river Kadwa the appellant, Ganesh Chaudhary, came. He caught his hand. Raudi Chaudhary protested, on which Ganesh Chaudhary abused him. Raudi Chaudhary asked not to abuse, on which the appellant assaulted him from one pointed portion of the Lathi on his stomach due to which he fell down and vegetables earned by Raudi Chaudhary scattered on the earth. Earthen pot carried by the deceased also fell down and broke. Raudi Chaudhary started collecting vegetables on which the appellant assaulted him with Lathi on the right side of the chest due of which he fell down, He with the help of 2-3 persons took him to his house but he died soon thereafter. He had gone to Jagdishpur police station but the case was not registered and hence he came to the police station to lodge a case and on his statement first information report was registered, the witness was cross-examihed atlength but nothing cogent was elicited to discredit his evidence 8. P. W. 4 is also an eye-witness to the occurrence. He was also with the deceased. He has given detailed narration of the incident and has stated that he P. W. 5 and Raudi Chaudhary, the deceased were returning to their house. P. W. 2 and many others were also so returning. When they reached near Kachhia filed, west of the Kadwa Ganesh Chaudhary with Lathi came and accused his uncle Shivdhari Chaudhary. Raudi Chaudhary protested on which he gave Lathi blow on the chest of Raudi Chaudhary. He fell down and the vegetables and earthen pot, which he was carrying, fell down on the earth and the earthen pot broke. Raudi Chaudhary started collecting the vegetables on which Ganesh Chaudhary again gave Lathi blow due to which he fell down and became senseless and thereafter he was taken on a cot but he died soon thereafter. The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing cogent was elicited to discredit the evidence of the witnesses. 9. Raudi Chaudhary started collecting the vegetables on which Ganesh Chaudhary again gave Lathi blow due to which he fell down and became senseless and thereafter he was taken on a cot but he died soon thereafter. The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing cogent was elicited to discredit the evidence of the witnesses. 9. P. W. 1 is also, an eye-witness to the occurrence. He has claimed in his evidence that he had seen the occurrence, but the witness in corss-examination clearly stated that he did not give statement before the police and for the first time he had come to depose in the Court. Thus, in the circumstances, the evidence of such witness has got no much importance. 10. The prosecution case is also supported by the doctors evidence. P. W. 8 is the doctor, who held post-mortem over the dead body. He has stated in his evidence that he held post-mortem over the dead body on 9.5.1980 at 12.30p.m.. He found ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased caused by hard blunt substance. He found abrasion on the person of the deceased and fracture of ribs on both sides of the chest. The doctor has opined that time since death was within twentyfour to fortyeight hours from the time of postmortem. The occurrence took place on 7.5.1980 after sun set and thus the medical evidence fully corroborates the prosecution case. The doctor however, stated in the cross examination that lungs, spleen and kidney were decomposing. 11. The evidence of the Investigating Officer also supports the prosecution. The Investigating Officer, P. W. 7, has stated in his evidence that he recorded the fardbeyan Ext. 1, of the informant. P. W. 5, prepared inquest report Ext. 2. He found broken piece of earthen pot on the place of occurrence, he seized and prepares seizure list, Ext. 3 and examined the witnesses. Thus the evidence of the investigating officer also corroborates, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, contended that there was great delay in lodging the F.I.R. and, as such the prosecution case should not be accepted. In this regard it is pertinent to mention herein that the occurrence took place on 7.5.1980 after sun set near Kachhia field on the west of Kadwa river i.e. on way to the house of the informant. In this regard it is pertinent to mention herein that the occurrence took place on 7.5.1980 after sun set near Kachhia field on the west of Kadwa river i.e. on way to the house of the informant. Fardbeyan was recorded on 8.5.1980 at p.m., i.e. within 18 hours. It is manifest from the evidence of the witnesses that after the occurrence they took the injured namely, Raudi Chaudhary to his house on a cot, as he was not in a position to walk, where he died soon thereafter. The informant and his family members could not go to the police station in the night which is at a distance of ten miles from the place of occurrence. It has been stated in the first information report that in the morning he went the Jagdishpur police station but no officer was present to record his statement and then he went to Sabour police station due to which there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. P. W. 5 has reiterated the said fact in his evidence. Thus, we do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant next contended that P. W. 4 and P. W. 5 were relation of the deceased and were inimical to the appellant and hence their evidence should not be relied upon. It is well established rule of law that the evidence of such witnesses are not required to be rejected outright rather requirement is that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with care caution. We have considered the evidence of P. W. 4 and P. W. 5 with care and caution but nothing was found to doubt their testimony nor learned Counsel for the appellant could be able to point out anything to discard their evidence. Thus, in the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellant further pointed out that the time of death in this case has not been proved as the doctor, P. W. 8, who held post mortem over the dead body has found that lungs, liver, spleen and kidney were decomposing which shows that the death was caused much prior of the alleged time of occurrence. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellant further pointed out that the time of death in this case has not been proved as the doctor, P. W. 8, who held post mortem over the dead body has found that lungs, liver, spleen and kidney were decomposing which shows that the death was caused much prior of the alleged time of occurrence. In this regard it is pertinent to mention herein that the doctor has opined that the death was within 24-48 hours from the time of post mortem. The medical jurisprudence by Modi says that decomposition depends upon the climate. In summer season it starts after 12 to 18 hours of death. In such a situation, it is difficult to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant as the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the month of May, i.e. summer season, Therefore, after 12 to 18 hours of death it is natural that limits of the dead body started decomposing. 15. Thus, on consideration, as discussed above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond a cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining period of sentence. In case of failure to surrender, the trial Court will take necessary steps to apprehend the appellant for the said purpose.