Judgment G.S.Choube and P.K.Sarkar JJ. 1. The sole appellant Parna Munda has been convicted by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge of Hazaribagh under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in S.T. No. 72 of 1982 by judgment and order dated 24.11.1988. Therefore, he has come to this Court in appeal against his conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts, which have led to the trial and conviction of the appellant are; that on 2.3.1980 which was the day of Holi, there had been some quarrel between the appellant and his brothers on one hand and one Sukra Munda of Hesagarh 7-B Colliery situated at a distance of about 8 Kms. from Mandu police station in the district of Hazaribagh. Due to that quarrel at about 9 in the night on the same day the appellant and his two brothers went to the house of Sukra Munda and challenged him to come out. At this one Ramdhan Munda, a neighbour, intervened and tried to pacify the aggressors, volunteering to settle the dispute between them. In the meantime, the appellant, who was carrying a Farsa in his hand, dealt a Farsa blow on the head of the said Ramdhan Munda, who fell down. The appellant repeated the Farsa blows on his back so much so that. The blade of the Farsa got stuck in the wound on back. After inflicting injuries to the said Ramdhan Munda the appellant and his brothers fled away. On alarm, some neighbourers arrived. The informant Sheo Tahal Munda, son of Ramdhan Munda, went to call his relative Basudeo Munda residing at another Dhaura of the same colliery situated at a some distance. In that course later in the night injured Ramdhan Munda succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Next morning his son Sheo Tahal Munda accompanied by his relatives Basudeo Munda and Balak Ram Munda went to Mandu police station and lodged an F.I.R. (Ext. 3) against the appellant and his unidentified brothers. A Sub-Inspector of Kuju police Out Post went to the place of occurrence, held inquest on the dead-body and sent the same for post-mortem to Sadar Hospital at Hazaribagh. In course of investigation the names of other two brothers of the appellant, namely, Jatru Munda and Indwa Munda came to light. Therefore, the three brothers were put on trial for committing murder of deceased Ramdhan Munda in-furtherance of common intention. In course of investigation the names of other two brothers of the appellant, namely, Jatru Munda and Indwa Munda came to light. Therefore, the three brothers were put on trial for committing murder of deceased Ramdhan Munda in-furtherance of common intention. 3. The appellant and his two brothers were charged under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of the deceased in furtherance of their common intention. However, they denied the charges, pleaded innocence and false implication. In particular, the appellant took the plea that at the relevant time he was not even present at the place of occurrence as he had gone to his village home in the district of Ranchi about 5 to 6 days back. 4. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses including P.W. 9 Moti Ram who simply proved the F.I.R. (Ext. 3) and carbon copy of the case diary (Ext. 4) as the Investigating Officer was by that time dead. No witness was examined by the accused persons in support of their defence. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish participation of the brothers of the appellant in commission of the murder of the deceased. Therefore, he acquitted Jatru Munda and Indwa Munda of the charges. However, he came to conclusion that prosecution has established beyond shadow of doubt that the present appellant had intentionally killed the deceased. Therefore, he has convicted him on the charge of Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the conviction of the appellant on the ground that there is discrepancy respecting the place of occurrence and the prosecution has failed to prove where the deceased was inflicted with injuries. He has also contended that there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses because some witnesses have stated that the blood splashed on the wall close to the place where the deceased was assaulted, but nothing of the sort appears to have been found by the Investigating Officer. The Counsel has also pointed out that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. and reaching the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate not before 10.3.1980. The Counsel has also pointed out that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. and reaching the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate not before 10.3.1980. Therefore, such delay in lodging the F.I.R. and despatch thereof to the Magistrate is sufficient to create doubt respecting the correctness of the allegation against the appellant. He has also assailed the conviction because, according to him, the genesis of the occurrence has not been satisfactorily proved. That apart, there was no motive to the appellant for inflicting fatal blows on the person of the deceased, he contended. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State submitted that whatever view of the matter is taken, it is well established that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased in the manner alleged by the prosecution witnesses. 7. Therefore, the points for consideration in the present appeal are whether the deceased had been killed at the place alleged by the prosecution, and if so, whether he had been killed by the present appellant. 8. The witnesses who have been examined to prove the allegation, are P.W. 1 Murti Kumari, also named by other witnesses as Mutki, who is daughter of the deceased; P.W. 2 Budhani Devi, the widow of the deceased ; P.W. 3 Basudeo Munda, brother-in-law, i.e., husband of the sister of the deceased; P.W. 4 Balak Ram Munda, the maternal cousin of the first informant; P.W. 5 Sukra Munda to assault whom the appellant and his two brothers are said to have gone to his house; P.W. 6 Paras Nath Mahto, a neighbour and P.W. 8 Sheo Tahal Munda, the first informant and son of the deceased; besides Dr. B.N, Prasad (P.W. 7) who had performed post-mortem on the dead body, in his evidence P.W. 7 has stated that on 3.3.1980 at 4.30 p.m. while he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, he had held post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased Ramdhan Munda and found the following injuries on his person: (i) One vertical incised wound 3-1/2" × 1/2" bone deep on the right side of the forehead cutting the scalp, frontal bone, membrane and right lobe of the brain. (ii) One vertical incised wound 5-1/2" × 21/2" × right pleura cavity on the right side of the back over the medial border of the right scapula with the pharsa embedded in the wound upto the hill; (iii) One incised wound 1-1/2" × 1/2" × 1-1/2" on the lower part of the back and right scapula-transverse by placed. On dissection and on removal of the blade of the Farsa skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscle, medial margins of scapula, muscles, ribs from 1 to 7 pleura, right lung, diaphragm and lever on the right side were found cut. According to the doctor, the injuries had been caused by sharp cutting weapon and the death of the deceased had occurred with 24 hours prior to the post-mortem as a result of shock and haemorrhage caused by the above mentioned injuries. The post-mortem report submitted by the Doctor in this regard is Ext. 1. 9 The remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution have also stated that the deceased had been injured at about 8 in the night of the Holiday which was a Sunday and later on he died. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 7 coupled with evidence of other witnesses leave little scope for doubting that the deceased died homicidal death because of injuries inflicted by some inimical hands. Even though the Investigating Officer who visited the place of occurrence and held inquest would not be examined because of his death from paragraph 7 of the case diary (Ext. 4) it becomes manifest that when he reached there, he had found the dead body of the deceased kept one cot on the Verandah of his residence which was part of a cluster of about 15 to 16 Khapra Phosh houses commonly known as Dhaura of Heshagarh, 7-B Colliery. He had found blood fallen on the ground beneath the cot on the Verandah. The houses of P.Ws. 5 and 6 were also situated there. The house in occupation of the appellant was on the rear side of the house in occupation of P.W. 5. The Sub-Inspector had also found some amount of blood flowing in drain in the lane situated in between the house of the deceased and that of P.W. 6 Paras Nath Mahto. He had also found mark of compiling on the ground there. The Sub-Inspector had also found some amount of blood flowing in drain in the lane situated in between the house of the deceased and that of P.W. 6 Paras Nath Mahto. He had also found mark of compiling on the ground there. Therefore, the ocular finding of the Investigating Officer also leads one to conclude that the occurrence of assault on the deceased had taken place at the place suggested by the prosecution witnesses. 10. In course of his evidence P.W. 8 Sheo Tahal Munda has stated that on the day of the occurrence which was a Sunday (although it was wrongly stated 3.3.1980 instead of 2.3.1980) at about 8 p.m. when he was at his house, the appellant and his two brothers arrived at the house of P.W. 5 and challenged him to come out because earlier in the day there had been some quarrel between them and P.W. 5. The deceased intervened. Consequently, he was assaulted by appellant with Farsa, which he was carrying in his hand. The appellant dealt first blow on the head of the deceased and when he fell down he had given two consecutive blows on his back. The blade of the Farsa remained embedded with wound on back. He went to P.W. 3 Basudeo Mandal to call him, and informed him about the occurrence. P.W. 1 Murti Kumari and P.W. 2 Budhani Devi, the daughter and widow respectively of the deceased, have also made similar statements and fully corroborated what P.W. 8 has stated. 11. P.W. 1, who was a child aged about 7 to 8 years at the time of occurrence, has stated that at the time when the appellant and his two brothers arrived, she was in the Verandah of the house. Her father went out and stated that he would settle the dispute between them. At this the appellant dealt Farsa blow on the head and after he fell down on back. According to her, the deceased breathed his last at about 4 a.m. P.W. 2 has stated that at the time when appellant and his brothers arrived and challenged P.W. 5, she was cooking in the Angan on improvised oven, her husband, son (P.W. 8), daughter (P.W. 1) and other children were also there. According to her, the deceased breathed his last at about 4 a.m. P.W. 2 has stated that at the time when appellant and his brothers arrived and challenged P.W. 5, she was cooking in the Angan on improvised oven, her husband, son (P.W. 8), daughter (P.W. 1) and other children were also there. She has also stated that when her husband tried to pacify, he was assaulted not only by appellant with his Farsa, but also by his two brothers by means of sidele and the hammer, which they were carrying. Consistent evidence of other witnesses including the first informant corroborated by the F.I.R. is that the appellant had inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased. Therefore, the statement of P.W. 2 that the remaining two brothers of the appellant also struck the deceased can be treated nothing beyond embellishment and exaggeration. 12. P.W. 6 Paras Nath Mahto who also resides in the same locality having his Dera, according to him, at a distance of hardly 50 meters, has stated that in the evening at about 8 he heard hulla of the deceased and the appellant. The appellant was challenging P.W. 5 to come out of the house. Thereafter, he heard the cries of the female members of the house of the deceased and went there to find the deceased fallen on the ground in the Courtyard with injuries on his head and back. The blade of the Farsa was also embedded in the wound on the back. He was told by P.W. 8 that the appellant and his brothers had assaulted his father who was, even though alive, unable to speak. This witness stated that he was working in the same colliery in which the appellant also was, and, therefore, he was well acquainted with the appellant and his voice. Thus it was not difficult for him to identify the appellant by voice when he was challenging P.W. 5 for coming out from his house. The witness has denied that he had any sort of dispute with the appellant, not even over the question of marking of attendance of the appellant by him in the colliery as suggested on behalf of the accused persons in course of his cross-examination. 13. The witness has denied that he had any sort of dispute with the appellant, not even over the question of marking of attendance of the appellant by him in the colliery as suggested on behalf of the accused persons in course of his cross-examination. 13. P.W. 3 Basudeo Munda has stated that in the night at about 8 or 9 when he was at his residence, the first informant went to him and informed that his father had been killed by the appellant and his brothers. He went there at about 2 or 2.30 a.m. to find the deceased dead. P.W. 4 Balak Ram Munda has also stated that he came to learn of the murder of the deceased in the morning and when he went to the place of occurrence, P.W. 8 told him that the appellant and his brothers had killed his father. 14. Thus, apart from the eye-witness account of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 8 that the deceased was given farsa blows by the appellant when the former tried to pacify the appellant and his brothers, who had gone to the house of P.W. 5 in aggressive mood because some previous dispute between them, P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6 have stated that when they went to the place of occurrence, they were informed by P.W. 8 that this appellant had assaulted the deceased with Farsa. All these three are hearsay witnesses. P.W. 6 arrived at the place of occurrence soon after the assault and learnt from P.W. 8 that it was appellant who had given blows on the person of the deceased. Therefore, his evidence is well high equivalent to eye-witness account. Added to this, he himself heard the appellant challenging P.W. 5 and the deceased also speaking at about the same time. P.W. 3 was also informed of the assault at the hands of the appellant within hours of the occurrence. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve what they have stated on oath respecting the occurrence. A contradiction has occurred in the statements of the witnesses respecting blood, stains on the wall. While some witnesses have stated that blood had also splashed on the wall, some others have stated that nothing of the sort was there. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve what they have stated on oath respecting the occurrence. A contradiction has occurred in the statements of the witnesses respecting blood, stains on the wall. While some witnesses have stated that blood had also splashed on the wall, some others have stated that nothing of the sort was there. In our opinion, the statement of the witnesses that blood had also fallen on wall not found even by the Investigating Officer, is nether but exaggeration not effecting the merit of the allegation against the appellant. 15. Respecting the genesis, the prosecution case is that earlier on the same day there had been some brawl between P.W. 5 on the one hand and appellant and his brothers on the other hand. Consequently in the evening at about 8, the appellant accompanied by his brothers had gone to the residence of P.W. 5 situated close to the residence of the deceased and challenged him in aggressive mood. Thereafter, the deceased was assaulted when he tried to pacify. P.W. 5 has stated that on that very day the appellant and his brothers had fallen out with one Shukhal oraon and he had intervened to invite the ira of the appellant and his brothers. Consequently, they had started quarrelling with him. He, however, went home and slept. In the night his wife awoke him and informed that the deceased had been killed by the appellant and his brothers. He went out and found that the deceased was lying dead on ground in the Courtyard. 16. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of P.W. 5, apart from being contradictory, is at variance with the earliest version in the F.I.R. in which it has been stated that when the deceased intervened, the appellant and his brothers were, in fact, quarrelling with P.W. 5 over some old dispute. However, consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that when the appellant and his brothers went to the residence of P.W. 5 and challenged him, his wife closed the door. It might be that what took place between the wife of P.W. 5 and the appellant and his brothers, was stated in the P.I.R. as a brawl between P.W. 5 and the appellant when the occurrence took place. It might be that what took place between the wife of P.W. 5 and the appellant and his brothers, was stated in the P.I.R. as a brawl between P.W. 5 and the appellant when the occurrence took place. In our opinion, minor variation from the F.I.R. in the consistent evidence of the witnesses including P.W. 5 is of no consequences in the present case. Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish satisfactorily the genesis of the occurrence. Indeed, some contradictions here and some contradictions there have occurred in the statements of the witnesses, but they are ignorable in view of the consistency in the evidence that it was the appellant who had inflicted the fatal blows on the deceased. 17. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to the fact that even though the occurrence had taken place at about 8 p.m. on 2.3.1980, the F.I.R. was lodged at the police station situated only 8 k.m. away at 9.30 a.m. on the next day. In other words, there was a gap of about 12 hours in lodging the report with the police. He has also pointed out that even though the F.I.R. is purported to have been despatched through a special messenger but it reached the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Hazaribagh on 10.3.1980. Therefore, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the despatch of the F.I.R. only clouds the prosecution with suspicion. We see no substance in the submission. It has come in evidence that occurrence had taken place in the evening of Holi festival. It has also come in evidence that probably because of the Holi festival vehicles were not plying on roads. Therefore, no body could go to the police station during the night. In the morning the first informant and his relatives who had arrived in the meantime, went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. Therefore, the delay is not unreasonable in the circumstance of the case, and cannot be a ground for inferring false implication of the appellant and his brothers. Indeed, the F.I.R. appears to have reached the C.J.M. on 10.3.1980. Indeed, the F.I.R. appears to have reached the C.J.M. on 10.3.1980. Since the Investigating Officer could not be examined because of his death, one does not know what exactly came in the way of reaching the F.I.R. promptly to the C.J.M., but the fact remains that soon after receiving the report regarding the occurrence, a Sub-Inspector of Police went to the place of occurrence on 3.3.1980, held inquest in presence of the witnesses, and prepared inquest report; and sent the dead body to hospital for autopsy. Evidence of P.W. 7 corroborated by the post-mortem report discloses that the dead body had reached the hospital at 4 p.m. on 3.3.1980 and post-mortem was done at 4.30 p.m. on the same day. From the post-mortem report it appears that the dead body was despatched from the P.O. on the same day at 11.30 a.m. Even though the inquest report is not on the record, there is a mention of that report in the post-mortem report in column 12 of Part (1) of the report. In other words, on receiving the report of the occurrence investigation proceeded in right earnest immediately. Therefore, even though there was a delay reaching of F.I.R. to the C.J.M., such delay hardly affects the merit of the case. It is not the law as though every delay in lodging the F.I.R. and its despatch from the police station to the Magistrate shall lead to an inference that the report is ante-dated and the investigation was not fair. We have indicated above that in the present case, even though the F.I.R. reached the C.J.M. on 10.3.1980, i.e., after a week of its registration, the investigation had started soon thereafter. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn therefrom. 18. Indeed, motive plays on role in a case of murder. Therefore, simply because the appellant had no motive to kill the deceased, it cannot be said that the prosecution case is, in any way, improbabilised. On the other hand the witnesses who have come to depose, are shown to bear no animus for falsely deposing against the appellant; their evidence is otherwise reliable and trust-worthy. 19. We find that the appellant was rightly been convicted for murdering the deceased for no fault. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and conviction and sentence of the appellant affirmed. The bail of the appellant is hereby cancelled. 19. We find that the appellant was rightly been convicted for murdering the deceased for no fault. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and conviction and sentence of the appellant affirmed. The bail of the appellant is hereby cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court within a month from this date.