JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction date 11.6.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra in sessions case No. 11/91 convicting the accused- appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further R.l. for six months, the learned Judge also convicted the accused-appellant under Section 201 and sentenced him for two years R.l. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal as also on the grounds urged at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. Facts giving rise to the appeal stated briefly are that a first information report was lodged by one Heera Ram Meghwal stating that his nephew Ghevar Ram was killed by accused Umaid Singh by giving him blow of a heavy stick. On the basis of the first information report lodged in the police on 16.6.1990, investigation was started. The accused was arrested and prosecuted. The prosecution has examined as many as 27 witnesses to, prove its case. Several documents were also proved by some of the witnesses and on consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge came to the conclusion of guilt and consistent with his finding of guilt, sentenced the accused to suffer life imprisonment as aforesaid. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, we have re-appreciated the evidence on record and have scrutinised the documentary evidence as was done by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. Shri Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the accused appellant assailed the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge on all the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal to summaries briefly the grounds of challenge are as under. 5. There is gross delay in the lodgment of first information report. 4. Shri Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the accused appellant assailed the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge on all the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal to summaries briefly the grounds of challenge are as under. 5. There is gross delay in the lodgment of first information report. The offence is alleged to have occurred between 5.00 and 6.00 in the evening of 15th June, 1990 whereas, the report is lodged on 16th June, 1990 at about 10.00 a.m. The learned counsel has taken us through the evidence of several witnesses particularly that of PW 24 Bheek Singh who is Surpanch of the village and who has stated that several villagers came to him in the night of 15th and 16th June, 1990 between 2.00 and 3.00 a.m. and told him that Ghevar Ram has been killed by Umaid Singh and thrown in the well. Heavy reliance has been placed on the testimony of this witness by the counsel and it was contended that there is clear cut concoction of the first information report and prosecution story as all the Meghwal community had assembled and have conspired to implicate the accused in the action of the death of Ghevar Ram. He also pointed out from the testimony of some other witnesses that everybody knew of the death having occurred by 8.00 in the evening of 15th June, 1990 and yet first information report was lodged only at 10.00 a.m. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the entire prosecution is fabricated and consequently, the conviction is unsustainable. 6. The second ground alleged by the learned counsel for assailing the order of conviction is that foot prints were taken from the scene of offence by the police but they have failed to prove the report of F.S.L. in regard to the identity of those foot prints. Adverse inference against the prosecution is liable to be drawn. 7. Then it was contended by Shri Doongar Singh that both the eye-witnesses PW 2 Vagta Ram and PW 3 Dewa Ram are chance witnesses and being very young are proved to be influenced by the others and their evidence alone cannot be enough to sustain the conviction as ordered by the learned Judge. The learned counsel took us through evidence and pointed out certain contradictions which according to him are material and therefore, required disbelieving of the evidence of these two witnesses. The learned counsel took us through evidence and pointed out certain contradictions which according to him are material and therefore, required disbelieving of the evidence of these two witnesses. According to the learned counsel, if the evidence of these two witnesses is excluded, there is nothing to prove by the prosecution which can be used for convicting the accused. He therefore, claimed acquittal to the accused. 8. Then it was contended by Shri Doongar Singh, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that even if the prosecution evidence is accepted, there are material discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution. If the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is to be accepted, then according to that evidence, the dead body of Ghevar Ram was thrown into the well by the accused at that time. Admittedly, it was taken out from the well some 18 hours later on and the post mortem does not disclose presence of water in the stomach. Consequently, it cannot be said that body was under water for more than 12 hours and yet did not have any water presence in the body. Relying heavily on the post mortem, it was contended that the body was not in water for a long period as 18 hours and the possibility of deceased having fell into the well sustaining injury and dying has not been excluded by reasonable evidence as is led by the prosecution. Consequently, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. 9. As aforesaid, we have re-appreciated the oral evidence and scrutinised the documentary evidence on record. PW 1 Dr. Gulabchand Vaderalias proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was caused due to injuries on the head and hemorrhage caused in the head because of the injury. The fact of death caused violently cannot therefore, be disputed. All that remains to be proved by the prosecution is that the death was caused by the accused. 10. to prove this fact of death being caused by the accused, the prosecution has examined several witnesses. PWs 2 and 3 are eye-witnesses who have deposed to the whole incident, they have been duly cross-examined. There is nothing in their evidence which will require rejection of their evidence. It is not disputed that they belong to the village. 10. to prove this fact of death being caused by the accused, the prosecution has examined several witnesses. PWs 2 and 3 are eye-witnesses who have deposed to the whole incident, they have been duly cross-examined. There is nothing in their evidence which will require rejection of their evidence. It is not disputed that they belong to the village. The fact of their going for grazing the goats is also natural and consequently, their presence on the scene of offence is also natural. The fact that they have immediately disclosed the commission of the offence to their respective parents is also duly proved on record. PW 16 Choutharam is father of PW 2 Vagtaram. He has deposed that PW 1 immediately told him about the killing of the deceased by the accused. He also disclosed that his son Vagtaram told him that at that time PW 3 Dewa Ram was also present. There is thus, independent corroboration to the evidence of these two witnesses who have immediately disclosed to occurrence to the parents. There is further corroborative evidence in the shape of other witnesses who have heard the disclosure or to whom the immediate disclosure was communicated. There is thus, intrinsic evidence on record to show that the accused was seen hitting the deceased with stick on the head by PWs. 2 and 3 and they immediately disclosed the incident to their parents who in turn informed others of the killing by the accused. The fact that all the persons belonging to the Meghwal Community had assembled and Surpanch was called also further proves the fact that the killing of deceased by accused was well-known by them. The mere delay in lodging the first information report thereafter cannot disprove these facts. The delay also has been caused for natural and valid reasons. Both the eye witnesses are boys of tender age and the decision of the elders to verify the facts before making of police complaint is but natural. It has come on record all the evidence of few witnesses that they had factually gone to verify the facts as told to them by PWs. 2 and 3 and had looked into the well with the help of the torch but did see nothing. It has come on record all the evidence of few witnesses that they had factually gone to verify the facts as told to them by PWs. 2 and 3 and had looked into the well with the help of the torch but did see nothing. There is no evidence on record that the well is completely built up and has no carveses near the water level which could successfully hid the body nor is there any evidence of any intense search for the body by the witnesses. From the deposition of these witnesses of whom reliance was placed, it is obvious that they grossly looked into the well to find dead body. It is in their evidence that thereafter they conferred and called Surpanch who said that if you fell that the enquiry has taken place, report to the Police and it was then said that the matter was referred for lodgment of first information report. The delay caused is, therefore, due to reasons which are cogent and valid and therefore, it cannot be taken as a ground for rejecting the entire prosecution story as concocted. It is accepted position in medical jurisprudence that a dead body does not drown. That being the position, there is no question of dead body of Ghevar Ram showing any water contains and the conclusion that the accused was responsible for killing the deceased cannot assail on the ground of such so called disparity. We therefore, see no reason to conclude that there is any error in the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. 11. To summarise the reasons for maintaining the order of conviction, we may point out the following circumstances which together form and unbroken chain of events proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution warranting maintaining of conviction. The circumstances are; (i) The deposition of PW 11 Kesoram who saw the accused and deceased going towards the "Bera" in which the body of the deceased was found. It is thus the evidence of the accused being last seen together with the deceased alive; (ii) PW 12 Bheeka, PW 13 Anaram and PW 15 Kaluram speak of previous enmity between the accused and the deceased. It is thus the evidence of the accused being last seen together with the deceased alive; (ii) PW 12 Bheeka, PW 13 Anaram and PW 15 Kaluram speak of previous enmity between the accused and the deceased. There is thus, enough evidence of motive and intention; (iii) The depositions of two eye-witnesses PWs 2 and 3 duly corroborated by the testimony of PW 16 Choutharam and others before whom, these eye-witnesses had immediately disclosed what they had seen; (iv) The deposition of these eye-witnesses that the accused hit the deceased with a stick is further independently corroborated by the testimony of the Dr. PW 1 who has opined that the death was caused due to head injury. (v) Independent corroboration of the testimony of PWs 2 and 3 by other witnesses who speak of immediately disclosure of incident by the witnesses to their near relations; (vi) Recovery of lathi as proved by PW 18 Mangilal from the possession or keeping of the accused. 12. These circumstances thus proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was instrumental in intentional killing the deceased for which he has been rightly sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge. We agree with each finding as recorded by the learned Judge and do hereby approve and affirm the same. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******