Judgment P.K.Deb and D.P.S.Choudhary JJ. 1. All the three accused appellants were convicted for committing murder of father and son, namely, Ram Swaroop Singh and Mahashwar Singh. Accused appellants 1 and 2 have been convicted under Section 302/34, IPC for causing murder of Maheshwar Singh, while accused appellant No. 3, Ram Das Singh has been convicted under Section 302, IPC for committing murder of Ram Swaroop Singh. All the three appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The judgment of conviction and sentence is dated 12-4-1989 passed by the then 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Patna in S.T.No. 223/82. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 2 Sarifa Singh died and as such this appeal has abated in respect of him. Accused appellants 1 and 2 had been granted bail on subsequent dates by this Court, considering their long stay behind the Bar and the appeal not being heard expeditiously. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12-9-1981, the deceased Maheshwar Singh, who was driving a Tum-tum brought accused appellant Ram Ekbal Singh from Barh Railway Station to his house at village Bihari Bigha. The fare of the Tum-tum was agreed upon to be paid at the rate of Rs. 12/-, but on reaching home, Ram Ekbal Singh denied to pay the fare at the rate of Rs. 12/-, stating the same to be excessive and an altercation started between the deceased Maheshwar Singh, Sarifa Singh and Ram Ekbal Singh and his uncle Ram Das Singh also joined. When Maheshwar Singh was adament to get the agreed fare, he was badly abused and according to the prosecution case he left the house of the accused persons and came to his own house which is also situated in the same Mohalla in the vicinity of the same neighbourhood. After some time, it is alleged that all the three accused persons being armed with dagger and Bhala came to the house of the deceased Maheshwar Singh and started abusing and then accused Ram Ekbal Singh gave a dagger blow to Maheshwar Singh, while Sarifa Singh assaulted Maheshwar Singh by means of Bhala. Ram Swaroop Singh, father of Maheshwar Singh was assaulted by accused appellant No. 3, Ram Das Singh, by means of Bhala. On alarm being raised and on hearing the altercation several other villagers of the neighbourhood came to the place of occurrence. Ram Swaroop Singh, father of Maheshwar Singh was assaulted by accused appellant No. 3, Ram Das Singh, by means of Bhala. On alarm being raised and on hearing the altercation several other villagers of the neighbourhood came to the place of occurrence. They saw the occurrence of assault and when the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence, then the injured persons were taken to the road side and by Tum-tum they were taken to Barh Hospital. There, the injured Ram Swaroop Singh gave his fardbeyan before the ASI of Barh Police Station and after giving first-aid, both the injured were referred to Patna Medical College and Hospital, as the injuries were grievous and of serious nature. At the PMCH both the injured met with death on the same day. On the basis of the fardbeyan being made by injured Ram Swaroop Singh, first of all a case was registered under Section 307, IPC, but after the death of both father and son, the case was converted into a murder case under Sections 302/34, IPC. 3. During the course of investigation inquest was held on both the dead bodies at PMCH itself and then those were sent for autopsy. In course of investigation, place of occurrence was visited and the accused persons were arrested. After closure of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 302/34, IPC. On being committed to the Sessions, charges were framed against appellant No. 3 Ram Das Singh, under Section 302, IPC for committing murder of Ram Swaroop Singh, by means of Bhala while against the other two accused, charge was framed under Section 302/34, IPC for causing murder of Maheshwar Singh by means of Chhura and Bhala respectively. Charges were framed by order dated 17-10-1988 and when the same were read over and explained, the accused persons pleaded not guilty. 4. The defence case is the denial of the manner of the occurrence as depicted from the side of the prosecution, but an occurrence took place on that date and time is admitted. Charges were framed by order dated 17-10-1988 and when the same were read over and explained, the accused persons pleaded not guilty. 4. The defence case is the denial of the manner of the occurrence as depicted from the side of the prosecution, but an occurrence took place on that date and time is admitted. The defence case is that on the date of occurrence, two mares belonging to Ramswaroop Singh had crushed the planted field of Sarifa Singh and those two mares were caught by accused appellant Sarifa Singh and were tied with rope for taking to pound, but in the meantime, the deceased persons namely, Ram Swaroop Singh and Maheshwar Singh came with weapons at their house being accompanied by other prosecution witnesses and they demanded the release of their mares : On which, there was altercation and the deceased persons had indulged in assault on the persons of the accused persons by means of lathi It was also urged from the side of the defence that during the course of such assault by the deceased persons lathi was hurled towards them from the side of the accused persons and there was brick-batting and throwing of stones by the villagers on the deceased persons as a result of which the deceased person sustained injuries on their persons. It is also the case of the accused persons that they also went in the injured condition to Barh Hospital and got their injuries examined at the hospital. They could not go to the Police Station as the village Sarpanch was a relation of the deceased persons and he had influence over the Police and as such on 14-9-1981 a complaint was filed before the ACJM, Barh. 5. The prosecution side has examined 7 witnesses in support of the prosecution case. Out of them PW-1, Ram Baran Singh, PW-2, Krishna Singh, PW-3 Saryug Singh, PW-4, Ram Gulam Singh and PW-5, Mostt. Binda Devi, wife of the deceased Ram Swaroop Singh are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW-6, Dr. Upendra Prasad Verma is the doctor who held post-mortem over the dead bodies. He found the following injuries on the persons of the deceased Ram Swaroop Singh and Maheshwar Singh. Injuries on the person of Ram Swaroop Singh : (i) Stiched wound with sharp margins 1-1/4" x scalp deep at left parietal region. Bone was not cut. PW-6, Dr. Upendra Prasad Verma is the doctor who held post-mortem over the dead bodies. He found the following injuries on the persons of the deceased Ram Swaroop Singh and Maheshwar Singh. Injuries on the person of Ram Swaroop Singh : (i) Stiched wound with sharp margins 1-1/4" x scalp deep at left parietal region. Bone was not cut. (ii) Stiched would with sharp margins and penetrating type at back of right chest 3/4"x cavity deep. Regional pleura and lungs cut. Blood found in the lungs cavity. (iii) Stiched wound with sharp margins and penetrating in type in back of left chest 3/4" into cavity deep. Regional pleura cut and lungs penetrated. Blood in the chest cavity. Total amount of blood in plural cavity both sides 250 c.c. with blood clots. (iv) Stiched wound at back of right abdomen 3/4 x cavity deep with peritonial cut. Injuries on the person of Maheshwar Singh : (i) Stiched wound 3/4" with sharp margins and chest cavity deep just below right clavicle directed medially posteriorily and downwards. The right lung was penetrated. The regional pleura was cut 150 c.c. of blood and blood clots were present in the pleural cavity. (ii) Stiched wound with Sharp margins 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" at front of left axilla. (iii) Stiched wound 3/4" x 1/4" deep with sharp margins at right cheek. (iv) Stiched wound 1/2" length at right odcipital perietal region at scalp into bone deep with periosteum under neath cut. (v) Stiched wound lateral aspect of righ elbow 1/4" x 1/2" x 1/2". According to the doctor, the injuries were caused on the persons of the deceased by sharp cutting and pointed weapons like that of dagger and Bhala. PW-7, Ashok Kumar Singh is the Sub-Inspector. of Police, who was the Officer-in charge of Pandarak Police Station at the relevant time and in whose jurisdiction the place of occurrence situates. He investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet. 6. From the side of the defence the injuries on the persons of the accused persons had been proved by adducing evidence of DW-1 Baldeo Singh. At the fag end of the trial the defence took a plea that the fardbeyan on the basis of which the Police case was registered was a manufactured and forged one and was never being signed by the deceased Ram Swaroop Singh during the life time. At the fag end of the trial the defence took a plea that the fardbeyan on the basis of which the Police case was registered was a manufactured and forged one and was never being signed by the deceased Ram Swaroop Singh during the life time. For proving that fact they had filed a petition before the Sessions Judge for calling for the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Ram Swaroop Singh during his life time in favour of the father of DW-2. Although vehement objections were raised from the side of the prosecution, the prayer was allowed and DW-2 produced the document before the Court, which was also marked as exhibit. Then on the prayer of the accused persons signature on that sale deed alleged to have been put by the deceased Ram Swaroop Singh was sent to the Hand Writing Expert, after photographs being taken of the same, and that of the fardbeyan. The Hand Writing Expert after examining the signatures in the sale deed and that in the fardbeyan came to his opinion that the signatures did not tally, The photographer has been examined as DW-4 and the Hand Writing Expert, who happens to be the father of the Photographer, as DW-5 and the report of the expert has also been marked as exhibit in the case. 6-A. Out of the five eye witnesses to the occurrence, PW-5, Mostt. Binda Devi and PW-2, Krishna Singh were categorised by the learned Sessions Judge as partisan witnesses, as PW-5 happens to be the wife of one of the deceased and the mother of the another deceased and PW-2 a relation of the deceased persons. The other three eye witnesses PWs. 1, 3 and 4 were the independent witnesses and on relying upon their statements being supported by the Medical evidence, the learned Sessions Judge came to the finding that the prosecution could be able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the defence version of the occurrence together with the opinion of the Hand Writing Expert and on the basis of Such findings convicted the appellants and sentenced them as already mentioned above. 7. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed by the learned Sr. The learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the defence version of the occurrence together with the opinion of the Hand Writing Expert and on the basis of Such findings convicted the appellants and sentenced them as already mentioned above. 7. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellants on the following grounds : (i) Contradictions in the evidence of the eye witnesses regarding manner and place of occurrence probablises defence version of the occurrence. (ii) Delay in reaching of the FIR before the Court of the ACJM gives scope for inferring that the FIR and the fardbeyan were fabricated and forged to fit in with the prosecution version belying the defence story. (iii) Injuries on the persons of the accused persons although proved and admitted from the side of the Investigating Officer have never been explained by the prosecution witnesses rather denial of the injuries on the persons of the accused persons makes the prosecution story disbelievable probablising the defence version. (iv) Fardbeyan which was attempted to be relied upon by the prosecution side as dying declaration of the deceased Ram Swaroop Singh could be belied by the report and evidence of the Hand Writing Expert. All these points raised from the side of the accused appellants have been controverted by the State Counsel by referring to the evidence on the record. 8 It has been found from the record that the occurrence took place at 7.30 p.m. on 12-9-1981 and the fardbeyan was made by the injured Ram Swaroop Singh in the midnight at about 12.50 a.m. on 13-9-1981 at the Sub-divisional Hospital, Barh and the said fardbeyan was registered as FIR at the Pandarak Police Station at 3 p.m. on 13-9-1981. As per the evidence of the Investigating Officer the said FIR was despatched from the Police Station at Pandarak on 14-9-1981, but the same was found to be received at the Court of the ACJM on 17-9-1981 as on the body of the FIR signature of the ACJM is dated 17-9-1981. As per the evidence of the Investigating Officer the said FIR was despatched from the Police Station at Pandarak on 14-9-1981, but the same was found to be received at the Court of the ACJM on 17-9-1981 as on the body of the FIR signature of the ACJM is dated 17-9-1981. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that such inordinate delay in receipt of the FIR at the Court is against the law laid down under Section 157, Cr PC and such delay alone can draw an inference of concoction manufacturing and tilting of the prosecution case to give go bye to the real affair. In this connection, it is submitted that as per the defence version the occurrence took place at the house of the accused persons when the deceased persons with their companions had gone to the house of the appellants to get their mares released and in that incident the accused persons had been injured and to supress this fact that to give a believable story the fardbeyan was forged at a later date after the death of Ram Swaroop Singh by impersonating some body to sign on the fardbeyan in the name of Ram Swaroop Singh and for that reason the delay was caused. Such submission of the learned Sr.Counsel for the appellants has been considered by us on considering the materials on the record. The legal principle remains that as soon as the FIR is registered in the Police Station, the same should be despatched to the nearest Court without losing any time. Here it appears that soon after registering of the case, the same was despatched to the Court but how it reached the Court of the ACJM on 17-9-1981 has not been explained. Only because the date on the signature of the ACJM was put as 17-9-1981, it cannot be said that the FIR had reached on that date. It might have a reached earlier also but because of the negligence or other reason the same had been placed before the ACJM on a belated date. Only because the date on the signature of the ACJM was put as 17-9-1981, it cannot be said that the FIR had reached on that date. It might have a reached earlier also but because of the negligence or other reason the same had been placed before the ACJM on a belated date. Although delay is there and there is no doubt about it as found in the record, but only the delay does not create doubt about the prosecution case unless it is being supported by cogent and reliable material to show that there was scope of changing of the FIR or the fardbeyan in the meantime. In the present case, the prosecution story from the very begining remains that the occurrence took place at the house of the deceased persons and both the deceased were assaulted at their own house and the eye-witnesses out of whom three are indpendent have supported the prosecution case from the very beginning and some of the eye-witnesses have also put their signatures as a witness to the fardbeyan. The motive had also been asserted in the fardbeyan itself and there is nothing on the record to infer that with any motivated purpose, there was any change in the fardbeyan. The fardbeyan may be termed as a dying declaraiton as soon after the making of the fardbeyan the Informant died in the hospital itself. The prosecution case has been supported by three independent witnesses who had no relation with either of the parties and nothing has been suggested to those independent witnesses as to why they have come to depose falsely against the accused persons. There was no need for the prosecution party to change the fardbeyan to suit their purpose, rather the fardbeyan story has been supported by the independent witnesses and it can be taken as a supporting evidence, although legally the same can also be construed as a dying declaration of one of the deceased. If the case would have been dependent only on the fardbeyan or the dying declaration as the case may be, then there could have been an inference of changing of the prosecution story because of the delay in reaching the FIR in the Court. If the case would have been dependent only on the fardbeyan or the dying declaration as the case may be, then there could have been an inference of changing of the prosecution story because of the delay in reaching the FIR in the Court. It has already been settled by the Apex Court that simple delay cannot make the prosecution case doubtful unless it is being supported by cogent and reliable materials to doubt the prosecution story. In this regard to Division Bench judgment of this Court may be referred to in the case of Chothe Yadav V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1999 (1) PLJR 427 : 1999 (1) East Cr C 827 (Pat). In that case almost all the judgments with regard to delay in reaching of the FIR in the Court as observed by the Apex Court have been discussed and as such we are not going to reiterate those rulings in this case, as we have already dealt that the prosecution case is not solely based on the so-called dying declaration vis-a-vis the fardbeyan given by the deceased Ram Swaroop Singh in the present case. 9. In this case related matter of Hand Writing Expert requires to be dealt with. So far the objection of the learned counsel for and of behalf of the appellants regarding reliance on the fardbeyan as dying declaraion is concerned, we have already mentioned that the case must stand even if the fardbeyan is not considered as dying declaration. The chapter of procuring the report of the Hand Writing Expert seems to be an after though in the present case by the defence. There was no specific suggestion to any of the aprosecution witnesses to the effect that the fardbeyan was never signed or the same was being signed by any impersonated person in the name of Ram Swaroop Singh. While the trial was going on, an attempt was made to bring the sale deed alleged to have been executed by the deceased Ram Swaroop Singh during his life time and although it was objected, the said prayer of the accused persons had been allowed by the Sessions Judge. In our opinion, such a prayer ought no to have been allowed. A Hand Writing Expert can only compare a questioned document with an admitted document. In our opinion, such a prayer ought no to have been allowed. A Hand Writing Expert can only compare a questioned document with an admitted document. No where it can be found that the sale deed was being admitted from the side of the prosecution or the heirs of deceased Ram Swaroop Singh that the same was executed by Ram Swaroop Singh in favour of the father of DW-2 when the sale deed is not admitted one, and the signature on that sale deed had never been exhibited by the prosecution party, then comparison of the hand writing in the sale deed with that of the fardbeyan is only a futile attempt and the report of the Hand Writing Expert had got no relevance in showing that the fardbeyan was being manufactured and forged by impersonating some one after the death of Ram Swaroop Singh. We have already held that even if the fardbeyan is not taken to be dying declaration of the deceased Ram Swaroop Singh, then also the prosecution case stands on the basis of the evidence of the independent witnesses. 10. Regarding place of occurrence, much argument has been made by the learned Sr. Counsel for and on behalf of the appellants to the effect that contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses show that the occurrence had not taken place at the house of the deceased persons. We have scrutinised the evidence of the eye-witnesses in the light of the sub-missions made on behalf of the appellants. There is not much contradiciton regarding the place of occurrence. It was stated in an unequivocal terms by the eye-witnesses that the occurrence took place within the house of the deceased persons. Some contradictions are there regarding the place of the actual assault. From the injuries on the persons of the deceased it could be found that there was several injuries inflicted on their persons and it is the natural human conduct that when a person is attacked with weapon then the victim would try to save himself by running from one place to another and in that way the injuries might have been inflicted at some different place, but the fact remains that the occurrence took place within the Sahan and Darwaza of the deceased persons. Such contradictions as pointed out by the learned Sr. Counsel rather, show the naturality of the eye-witnesses. 11. Such contradictions as pointed out by the learned Sr. Counsel rather, show the naturality of the eye-witnesses. 11. Regarding non-explanation of the injuries on the persons of the accused persons,- much stress has been given from the side of the accused appellants to the effect that such non-explanation, although admitted from the side of the Investigation Officer can only probablise the defence version and the accused persons are entitled to get benefit out of it. Some injuries could be proved by the accused persons by adducing the evidence of DW-1, but none of those injuries were visible injuries. Some were swellings and some were abrasions and it is stated that one of the injuries was the grievous. But unfortunately such breaking of bones as deposed by the doctor could never be confirmed. When no visible injuries are there on the person of the accused, then it does not become incumbent on the prosecution party to explain such injuries. It might be that such injuries were caused on the persons of the accused persons when there were attempts from the deceased persons to avoid the blows inflicted on them or that prior or after the present occurrence there was another occurrence in which the accused persons had sustained the injuries and the same can only be decided in the trial for which a complaint case is filed. But for non-explanation of the injuries ort the person of the accused persons it cannot be said that the prosecution case suffers from doubt or incredibility. More over it has never been explained from the side of the accused persons as to why they also did not inform the Police. It was only stated that as the Sarpanch of the village was the relation of the prosecution side and he had influence over the Police and as such they had not gone to the Police and subsequently a complaint was filed. Subsequent lodging of the complaint by the accused persons becomes a week story on the face of it as the same can be construed to be filed for creation of a defence. It has also not been found as to what happened to the complaint case filed by the accused persons. The doctor who had examined the accused persons had also not informed the Police and he has not given any explanation as to why he had not done so. It has also not been found as to what happened to the complaint case filed by the accused persons. The doctor who had examined the accused persons had also not informed the Police and he has not given any explanation as to why he had not done so. These are the matters which can be considered in the trial of the complaint case and we shall not pass any comment on the same. But only because some invisible injuries were there on the person of the accused persons and the same has not been explained from the side of the prosecution side, the prosecution version of the occurrence cannot be doubted when the same has been supported by five witnesses and out of whom three are eye-witnesses, and the whole occurrence together with its mens rea and the motive has been depicted by one of the deceased in the injured condition in the fardbeyan and the same fardbeyan story has been supported by all the, eye-witnesses. An injured person on the verge of death is not expected to fall upon the enemy leaving aside the actual assailant. 12. As the evidence of all the witnesses have been discussed in detail by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment and the analysis of the evidence of the eye-witnesses as made by the learned Sessions Judge are found to be proper and justified, we have debarred ourselves in reiterating those in the appellant judgment. We agree with whatever has been discussed by the learned Sessions Judge, while analysing the evidence of the eye-witnesses in the impugned judgment. 13. Lastly it has been submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel for and on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution story suffers from lacuna to the effect that as per the prosecution version deceased Maheshwar Singh demanded Tum-tum fare and the same was not given by the accused person then the deceased Maheshwar Singh and his father were the aggrieved party and it is natural that they would be aggressors in getting their demands satisifed and as such attacked the, accused persons. It is difficult to explain the human psychology and what was prevailing at that time in the minds of the accused persons or the deceased cannot be explained or visualised. It is difficult to explain the human psychology and what was prevailing at that time in the minds of the accused persons or the deceased cannot be explained or visualised. But the factual aspect remains that there was some rift between the parties on the demand of fare and the occurrence is the consequent result of the same rift. The eye-witnesses have stated that in the occurrence the accused persons were the aggressors. If the deceased persons were aggressor and were being armed with weapons then definitely the accused persons would have some more visible injuries than what they have proved in the case. In the circumstances, We find that the prosecution case could be well established and the charges framed against the accused appellants have been well proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 14. In the result, the appeal fails and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence in respect of accused appellants 1 and 3 is hereby upheld and confirmed. Accused appellants 1 and 3 are hereby directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a month from this date and serve out the balance period of sentence. If there is any default, then the Trial Court shall take all coercive steps to bring them to book for serving the balance period of sentence. Their bail bonds submitted in consequence of the bail order passed by this Court shall be cancelled, if the accused appeallants 3 do not surrender within a period of one months as mentioned above.