Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the following facts :- On September 2, 1989 at about 9-00 p.m, Hardev Singh (PW-8) went to the liquor vend in village Dalel Singh Wala to meet his brother Gurdev Singh (since deceased), who was employed there as a salesman. The two accused Harjit Singh and his friend Mohan Singh were also present at the vend at that time. Hardev Singh and Gurdev Singh and the two accused started taking liquor on the roof of the liquor vend. In the meanwhile, the water needed for mixing with the liquor fell short, on which Gurdev Singh asked Harjit Singh to arrange for water. As both the parties were drunk, there was an altercation between them on this minor issue. Harjit Singh thereafter picked up a soti lying there and gave a blow on the head of Gurdev Singh. Gurdev Singh and Hardev Singh raised an alarm. Gurdev Singh then came down from the roof and started running towards village Lalluala along the road, chased by the two accused both now armed with sotis. Hardev Singh (PW-8) also followed them in that direction. Teja Singh (PW-2) also reached the spot just then. The two accused thereafter caught hold of Gurdev Singh and gave repeated blows on his head on which he fell down on the ground and after he had fallen down, 5/6 blows were given to him. The accused then ran away from the spot. Teja Singh and Hardev Singh went closer and found that Gurdev Singh was dead. Leaving Teja Singh to guard the dead body, Hardev Singh proceeded to Mansa on foot for his village Ghuman Kalan as he could not get a bus at that time. He, however, managed to get a bus early in the morning and on reaching his village, contacted Sarpanch Sukhdev Singh and informed him about the occurrence. He thereafter tried to contact Sukhdev Singh and Neta Singh, Members of the Panchayat but they were not available at their homes. Hardev Singh then went to his house and informed his family members about the murder. He thereafter contacted Magher Singh, another Member of the Panchayat, and accompanied by him proceeded towards Police Station, Bhiki by bus to lodge the report. They, however, came across a police party headed by PW-9 ASI Som Nath at the crossing of Budhlada. Hardev Singh then went to his house and informed his family members about the murder. He thereafter contacted Magher Singh, another Member of the Panchayat, and accompanied by him proceeded towards Police Station, Bhiki by bus to lodge the report. They, however, came across a police party headed by PW-9 ASI Som Nath at the crossing of Budhlada. Hardev Singh accordingly alighted from the bus and made his statement, Ex.PD, before the said police officer and on its basis, the formal F.I.R. was registered at 3.05 p.m. on September 3, 1989 and the special report was delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at 6-0 p.m. the same evening. After recording the statement Ex.PD of Hardev Singh, ASI Som Nath accompanied by Gurdev Singh and magher Singh came to the spot and found the dead body lying there with Teja Singh guarding the same. ASI Som Nath made the necessary inquiries and despatched the dead body for the post-mortem examination. The two accused were arrested on September 18, 1989 on being produced before the police by Gagan Singh, Lambardar, and on the basis of their disclosure statements, the weapons of offence were duly recovered. 2. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were charged for an offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined inter-alia PW-1 Dr. Surinder Kumar, who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body and had found 18 injuries on it, which would have been caused with lathis; PWs 2 and 8 Teja Singh and Hardev Singh, respectively, the two eye witnesses; PW-9 ASI Som Nath, the Investigating Officer. Magher Singh was, however, given as unnecessary. 4. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they pleaded false implication. 5. The trial Court came to the conclusion that there was unexplainable delay in the lodging of the F.I.R., which in the circumstances was fatal to the prosecution case. The Court also found that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. had been utilised by the prosecution to arrange for the two eye witnesses i.e. Teja Singh and Hardev Singh. The Court also found that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution story. The Court also found that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. had been utilised by the prosecution to arrange for the two eye witnesses i.e. Teja Singh and Hardev Singh. The Court also found that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution story. The Court accordingly acquitted the accused of the charge. Hence this appeal at the instance of the State of Punjab. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. 7. The principles which would govern a decision in an appeal against acquittal have been enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166. It has been held in this judgment that the interference in such an appeal would be called for if the judgment under appeal was perverse and could not have been rendered on the basis of the evidence on record. The present appeal would have to be examined in the light of these basic principles. 8. The trial Court has given a positive finding that the F.I.R. had been lodged belatedly. Admittedly, PW-8 Hardev Singh was the real brother of Gurdev Singh and as per the prosecution case, the incident had taken place at about 9-00 p.m. on September 2, 1989 when the two accused had attacked and murdered Gurdev Singh, the brother of this witness. Hardev Singh has explained that he had thereafter gone to his village and thereafter informed his family members about what had transpired and it was while he was on his way to Police Station, Bhiki that he made his statement Ex.PD to him at 3.00 p.m. on September 3, 1989 and the formal F.I.R. had been registered half an hour later. It is, therefore, evident that there was a delay of almost 18 hours in the lodging of the F.I.R. We find Hardev Singhs conduct in not reporting the matter to the police at the very first instance, to be wholly unnatural. His behaviour clearly shows that he had not witnessed the incident and had been brought to the place after the dead body had been found some time in the afternoon of September 3, 1989. His behaviour clearly shows that he had not witnessed the incident and had been brought to the place after the dead body had been found some time in the afternoon of September 3, 1989. We have also gone through the evidence of Hardev Singh and Teja Singh and find that even their identification of the two accused also appears to be doubtful, as both these witnesses were chance witnesses and were not even familiar with the two accused. Teja Singh has not been able to give any cogent reason as to how he had reached the spot at the relevant time. We also find that the trial Court had given good reasons for arriving at a conclusion that the medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular version. We thus find absolutely no reason to differ with this finding as well. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment under challenge has been rendered as per the evidence on record. No interference is called for. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.