Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. ]As it happens sometimes, on most petty and trivial issue, one human life was lost on the day of incident, as it is alleged that at about 12 noon on 17th June, 1987, after appellant Raj Narain Singh hurled a mango stone on the back of Brajesh Kumar Singh (PW 6), the latter retorted when the former chased him, pursuant to an altercation that ensued between them. It was alleged that while Brajesh Kumar Singh had taken shelter in his house, appellants came there at a site where boundary wall was damaged and pelted brick bats when his family members suffered injures on their persons. Explicit accusation attributed to Rajendra Singh was that he pelted brick bats which hit Brajesh Kumar Singh on his back. As for Raj Narain Singh, he was suggested to be the author of the injury on the person of Meenu Kumari (PW 5), by pelting brick bats, and for injuries suffered by Parvati Devi, Tej Narain Singh was suggested to be the author, who allegedly pelted brick bats on her, and for the fatal injury suffered by Deomunna Devi, deceased, Subhag Singh was suggested to be the author of the said injury which was caused by pelting brick bats by him. It was alleged that shortly after Deomunna Devi suffered injuries on her chest by pelting of brick bats by Subhag Singh, she dropped dead and with these narrations, fardbeyan of Brajesh Kumar Singh was recorded at 12.30 hours on 17th June. 1987 by Shri S.D. Singh, Sub Inspector of Police. Jalalpur Police Station which forms basis of the first information report registered at Police Station Chapra, pursuant to which investigation commenced. 2. In the process of collection of evidence, during investigation Police visited place of occurrence on receipt of some message from chowkidar about killing of Deomunna Devi, prepared inquest report over her dead-body, recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC), sent the dead body to mortuary for post-mortem examination, got the injured clinically examined by the doctor, seized some incriminating objects which were pieces of brick bats from the place of occurrence and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court and on committal to Court of Sessions. the appellants were put on trial. 3. the appellants were put on trial. 3. In the eventual trial, prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses and those examined by the prosecution were injured, those who expressed familiarity with the incident, the doctor, who examined injuries on the person of Parvati Devi and Meenu Kumari and also Dr. R.C. Jaiswal (PW 8) who held autopsy over the dead body of Deomunna Devi, and also Satya Deo Singh. Sub Inspector of Police, who carried out investigation of the incident, and the trial Court on meticulous appreciation of evidences placed on record, recorded verdict of guilt under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Rajendra Singh, Tej Narain Singh and Raj Narain Singh but instead of awarding them any substantive sentence, directed their release under Section 360. Cr PC on execution of a bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Though Subhag Singh along with other appellants also stood charged under Section 302/34, IPC, no finding of guilt was recorded against him on that count. However, the trial Court convicting Subhag Singh under Section 304, Part II, IPC, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years which has been challenged in this appeal by the appellants. 4. Now, adverting to the evidences placed on record on behalf of the State, one would find Brajesh Kumar Singh (PW 6), who was also the maker of fardbeyan, reiterating his early version which he rendered before the Police about Raj Narain Singh having chased him to his house when the former hurled mango stone on him for which he stoutly retorted. The witness would state that shortly thereafter, the appellants came to his house. While he complained the matter to his mother, they began to abuse and also resorted to brick batting and when his mother took them to task for doing so on such trivial matter, which was between the kids, they started pelting brick bats when he along with his mother and sister sustained injuries on their persons. The witness has made reiteration, about the overtact attributed to the individual appellants, of the early version which he rendered before the Police. He would also state that on being exhorted by Rajendra Singh, Subhag Singh pelted brick bat which hit the chest of his grandmother Deomunna Devi when she dropped unconscious. The witness has made reiteration, about the overtact attributed to the individual appellants, of the early version which he rendered before the Police. He would also state that on being exhorted by Rajendra Singh, Subhag Singh pelted brick bat which hit the chest of his grandmother Deomunna Devi when she dropped unconscious. About appellant Subhag Singh, the witness would state that he repeated pelting of brick bats which again hit the abdomen of his grandmother, pursuant to which she died instantaneously. While he was going to the Police Station, he happened to meet chowkidar who advised him to go back to his house and after the Police Officer came to his house he rendered his statement which was reduced in writing by the Police Officer. More or less narrations in similar terms about the family members sustaining injuries at the hands of the appellants, were made by Parwati Devi (PW 1). Jagdhar Singh (PW 2), Shailendra Singh (PW 3), Parsuram Singh (PW 4) and Meenu Kumari (PW 5) about the appellants pelting brick bats when Parvati Devi Brajesh Kumar Singh and Meenu Kumari, suffered injuries on their persons. Explicit accusation had been attributed to Subhag Singh by the witnesses about pelting brick bats on Deomunna Devi which hit her chest and abdomen pursuant to which she died instantaneously. 5. Dr. Nawal Kishore Singh (PW 7). who clinically examined the injured, stated to have noticed a circular swelling with abrasion on the back in the mid line of Brajesh Singh. The doctor would state to have noticed swelling with abrasion on Meenu Kumari also on the right side of chest. Parwati Devi too complained of pain in her right arm. These injuries in the estimation of the doctor were possible by brick bats. 6. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Jaiswal (PW 8) who held autopsy over the dead body of Deomunna Devi, noticed following injuries on her person : (i) One abrasion 3"x2" on the right side of abdominal wall Muscles underneath this injury was lacerated leading to ruture of right kidney. Surface of right kidney was having haemorrhagic spot. (ii) One abrasion on the left side of anterior aspect of chest 1-l/2"xl". Cause of death in the estimation of the doctor was due to rupture of kidney leading to neurogenus shock and death. Both the injuries in the opinion of the doctor were possible due to heavy impact of brick. Surface of right kidney was having haemorrhagic spot. (ii) One abrasion on the left side of anterior aspect of chest 1-l/2"xl". Cause of death in the estimation of the doctor was due to rupture of kidney leading to neurogenus shock and death. Both the injuries in the opinion of the doctor were possible due to heavy impact of brick. Viscera was also preserved for chemical analysis by forensic science laboratory. 7. Satyadeo Singh (PW 9). who was Investigating Officer, stated to have received a message on 17th June, 1987 at about 1 p.m. from the chaukidar Ram Ratan Manjhi about killing of Deomunna Devi, pursuant to which station diary entry No. 312 was recorded and he proceeded in the village where place of occurrence situates. After he reached village Barki Sabri at about 1.30 p.m., he recorded fardbeyan of Brajesh Kumar Singh, noticed the dead body of occurrence which was an open filed, adjacent north to the house of Brajesh Kumar Singh. There was a temple at a distance of about 700 yards in the south and west direction. The Police Officer stated to have noticed some pieces of brick bats at the place of occurrence which was seized and a seizure memo had been prepared by him. The house of the appellants also lay adjacent north to the house of Brajesh Kumar Singh. The Police Officer stated to have recorded statement of witnesses, got the injured clinically examined by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State. 8. Manifold submissions were canvassed at Bar on behalf of the appellants obviously to assail the findings recorded by the trial Court and it is sought to be urged that since the brick bats allegedly pelted twice by Subhag Singh was shown to have proved fatal causing instantaneous death of Deomunna Devi, such narrations about Subhag Singh having pelted brick bat twice which hit the abdomen of Deomunna Devi was conspicuously wanting in the early version which he rendered before the Police. On these premises it is strenuously urged that the bona fide of the prosecution case has to be discarded on this score alone. Contentions were raised on behalf of the appellants that though house of Laxmi Singh. On these premises it is strenuously urged that the bona fide of the prosecution case has to be discarded on this score alone. Contentions were raised on behalf of the appellants that though house of Laxmi Singh. Dhaneshwar Singh, Lallan Singh, and Sagar Singh situate in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, as has been the evidence of Parvati Devi (PW 1). only family members and those who were interested in the affairs of the prosecution were examined by the State. entirely to the exclusion of those persons who could have been most competent and independent witnesses and in quick succession next limb of argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants was that, as would appear from the tenor of the evidence of none else but the Investigating Officer that shortly on receipt of message from the chaukidar, he drew station diary entry No. 312 (Exhibit 9) and proceeded to the place of occurrence, and the said information being the earliest version of the prosecution, had to be treated to be first information report, as statement rendered by Brajesh Singh before the I.O. pursuant to commencement of investigation was hit by Section 162, Cr PC and that cannot be treated to be First Information Report, in view of the embargo put by the said Section. Learned counsel would urge that the statement rendered by Brajesh Singh as such would not be covered by Section 154. Cr PC and in that view of the matter, vitality of the entire prosecution case was lost. Discrepant statement of the witnesses was also taken to be a ground to impeach their credibility and to reject the prosecution version in entirety, and the last submission canvassed on behalf of the appellants was that even taking the prosecution version to be true on its face value, regard being had to the circumstances and also the overtact allegedly attributed to Subhag Singh, he cannot be credited even with the knowledge for committing an act which he would have anticipated to cause death of the deceased. Learned Counsel for the State would counter the arguments canvassed on behalf of the appellants and it is urged that the prosecution has led credible evidences, more so of those who were injured and their ocular testimony cannot be rejected on flimsy grounds. 9. Learned Counsel for the State would counter the arguments canvassed on behalf of the appellants and it is urged that the prosecution has led credible evidences, more so of those who were injured and their ocular testimony cannot be rejected on flimsy grounds. 9. As has been stated, the prosecution has led good evidence to bring home charges against the appellants and these are the evidences of PW 1 Parvati Devi, PW 2 Jagdhar Singh. PW 3 Shailendra Singh, PW 4 Parsuram Singh, PW 5 Meenu Kumari and PW 6 Brajesh Kumar Singh, who were stating in most coherent terms on material particulars of the case about Parvati devi, Brajesh Kumar Singh and Meenu Kumari sustaining injuries on their persons when appellants pelted brick bats. True it is that in his early version which Brajesh Kumar Singh rendered before the Police, no narration about Subhag Singh pelting brick bat twice was stated. However, if it urged that in the statement which witnesses rendered before the Police. Subhag Singh was explicitly attributed to have pelted brick bats twice which hit the abdomen of Deomunna Devi. pursuant to which she died instantaneously. While appreciating the earliest version of its maker, this fact cannot be lost sight that though it is expected to contain not only graphic details but also the details of material particulars of the incident, yet it is not the last word of the prosecution, and particularly when a number of persons were pelting brick bats indiscriminately, as has been the evidence of the witnesses, it is not unlikely that Brajesh Kumar Singh might not have noticed the pelting of brick bats twice by Subhag Singh as much depends on the power of perception and observance of a witness which is not same with all human beings and argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants on this score about rejection of evidence of witnesses with regard to Subhag Singh pelting brick bat twice has to be rejected. 10. 10. The other serious contention raised on behalf of the appellants, as has been stated in the preceding pages, was that statement rendered by Brajesh Kumar Singh could not have been treated as First Information Report since information about the incident had already been conveyed to the Police Officer pursuant to which investigation commenced and reliance on this score has also been placed on a decision of the Apex Court of the land reported in the case of T.T. Antony V/s. State of Kerala and others, (2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001(3) East Cr C 261 (SC). in which observations were made by the Apex Court that there can be no second First Information Report and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. However. I find that the broad principle of law laid by the Apex Court of land in the case cited at Bar is quite distinct from the case under consideration as in the case cited at Bar. pursuant to drawal of two information reports which ended in submission of final report, another First Information Report was directed to be registered and in that backdrop observations were made by the Apex Court of land that there was no occasion for drawal of another First Information Report, once the investigation had commenced earlier and that apart, it would seem that the information which were rendered to the Police Officer by Ram Ratan Manjhi, chaukidar was a most cryptic message as it did not contain details about the assailants. True it is that the Police Officer stated to have taken up investigation on receipt of message and in that view of the matter, even if the statement rendered by Brajesh Kumar Singh was not treated to be First Information Report, the unimpeachable evidence of the eye-witness. which were direct, could not be thrown abroad and on this score reliance can be placed on a decision of the Apex Court of the land reported in the case of Somappa Vamanappa Madar Shankarappa Ravanappa Kaddi V/s. State of Mysore. 1979 Cri LJ 1358 : AIR 1979 SC 1831 in which rejecting the First Information Report, the credibility of the witnesses was taken into consideration to judge culpability of the assailants. 1979 Cri LJ 1358 : AIR 1979 SC 1831 in which rejecting the First Information Report, the credibility of the witnesses was taken into consideration to judge culpability of the assailants. True it is that those persons who were shown to have resided in the vicinity were not examined at trial by the State but nonetheless evidence of ocular witnesses cannot be rejected on that score alone, particularly, in view of the fact that Parsurama Singh and Jagdhar Singh resided in the same vicinity where place of occurrence situates. No evidence has ever come on the record that they were closely related with Brajesh Kumar Singh and it is a matter of common knowledge that persons residing in rural areas call others as brothers and uncle but that does not unnecessarily lead to the conclusion that they were kith and kin or were close relations. 11. However, there are some distressing features of the prosecution case which cannot remain unnoticed. Though Sailendra Singh (PW 3), who was obviously son of the deceased, claimed to be ocular witness, from the tenor of his evidence and also the evidence of the I.O. it would appear that he had not narrated before the Police in similar terms which he stated before the Court on some material particulars of the case about the appellants being authors of the injuries on the person of the injured and also Subhag Singh being the author of the episode of killing of Deomunna Devi. Though attention of PW 4 was also drawn by the defence to his early statement which he rendered before the Police and true it is that in respect of other appellants, his evidence was not the same before the Police but he was quite emphatic to have stated before the Police about Subhag Singh having pelted brick bats on Deomunna Devi which hit the old lady, pursuant to which she died instantaneously. Suggestion given to the witnesses about false implication of the appellants was also most vacilating, as it is sought to be shown that there was false implication of the appellants due to dispute for the land which situates in front of the house of Brajesh Kumar Singh but there was no other evidence about litigations persisting between the parties. Suggestion given to the witnesses about false implication of the appellants was also most vacilating, as it is sought to be shown that there was false implication of the appellants due to dispute for the land which situates in front of the house of Brajesh Kumar Singh but there was no other evidence about litigations persisting between the parties. The testimony of the witnesses particularly those who were stamped witnesses had received ample corroboration from the findings recorded by the doctor and that apart, the objective findings of the Police Officer had also lent assurance to the prosecution version about pelting of brick bats at the place of occurrence. 12. Having given my anxious and deepest consideration to the evidences placed on record and also due regard being had to the facts that both the appellants and the deceased were close agnates and since the incident happened on a most trivial issue, while convictions of the appellant Sub-hag Singh under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and that of appellants Rajendra Singh, Tej Narain Singh and Raj Narain Singh under Section 323, IPC are maintained but the sentence of appellant Subhag Singh. regard being had to the mental agony for suffering criminal trial for 15 years, is reduced to a period of two years and with this modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed. Bail Bonds of appellant Subhag Singh are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence. Trial Court is also directed to take all coercive steps to take this appellant in custody.