P. C. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) IN all six accused persons were put to trial under Sections 302. 149. 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (Code for short) before Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in s. T. No. 53/1986 (State of M. P. v. Shripati and others ). Out of these. Hariram (A-1) and Bhujwal (A-2) were convicted on 22/12/1987 under Section 302 of the Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment while 4 others (i) Shripati Sb Meharban Singh (ii) Malam Singh Sb Meharban Singh (iii) Musahab Singh Sb Ghuman Singh and (iv) Kamal Singh S/0 Mangal Singh were acquitted by the Trial Court giving them benefit of doubt. The convicted appellants have filed this appeal. ( 2 ) AS per prosecution on i8/12/1985 deceased Bhogiram had gone to Village Bel Babri Ration Fair Price Shop to take sugar with Son Singh (PW-4) and Santokh Singh (PW-5 ). Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3) had also accompanied him with Son Singh (PW4) and Santokh Singh (PW-5) on return. Hariram (A-1) with farsa. Bhujwal Singh (A-2) with an axe with other coaccused Musahab Singh. Kamal Singh, Malam Singh and Shripati who were armed with Axe. Farsa and Luhangi checked deceased Bhogiram in the way. Hariram (A-1) gave a farsa blow on the head of the deceased Bhogiram. Bhujwal Singh (A-2) gave a axe blow above his right ear. Co-accused Musahab Singh dealt with 3 or 4 blows of axe on left shoulder of deceased Bhogiram. Shripati hit him by Luhangi on his legs. Malam Singh wielded farsa, thereby nose of deceased Bhogiram was cut and left hand wrist was injured. Kamal Singh gave a blow of axe on left leg even after fall of deceased Bhogiram. Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3 ). Son Singh (PW-4) and Santokh Singh (PW-5) were frightened and ran away. Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3) who happens to be brother-in-law of the deceased Bhogiram rushed to Sirdar Singh (PW-2), the father of deceased Bhogiram and narrated the whole story. Sirdar Singh (PW-2) Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3) and Sauhbhag Singh (PW-6) went to the spot and carried away the deceased Bhogiram to Police Station Banmorekalan. How ever deceased Bhogiram succumbed to his injuries in the way. Sirdar Singh (PW-2) lodged F. I. R. Exhibit P-5 at Banmorekalan on i9/12/1985 at about 4:45 PM. Sirdar Singh (PW-2) Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3) and Sauhbhag Singh (PW-6) went to the spot and carried away the deceased Bhogiram to Police Station Banmorekalan. How ever deceased Bhogiram succumbed to his injuries in the way. Sirdar Singh (PW-2) lodged F. I. R. Exhibit P-5 at Banmorekalan on i9/12/1985 at about 4:45 PM. ( 3 ) AS per prosecution the case pertained to Police Station Khaniyadhana Police Banmorekalan sent f. I. R. Ex. P/s to P. S. Khaniyajhana, where exhibit P-9 was recorded. Sumler Singh Renwal (PWi2 ). S. O. Khaniyadhana proceeded to the spot and prepared spot map (Ex. P-5 ). He seized the plain and blood stained soil with a pair of shoes and hair of deceased Bhogiram. Police Banmorekalan prepared inquest memo (Ex. P-4) and sent the dead body of deceased Bhogiram for Post mortem examination of P. H. C. Khaniyadhana, where Dr. Girish Chand Shrivastava (PW14) noted down vide Ex. P-30 following 9 incised wounds: 1. Incised wound S x i i [@/2 x 1 cmm Blood clots ++ S cms above to the Right ear (Parietal region) 2. Incised wound 4 x i x i cmm. Blood clots ++ Left Parietal Region 3. Incised wound 3 x 1 x i-i/2 cmm Back of Right ear (Temporal Region) 4. Incised wound 2-1/2 x 1 x 3/4 cmm Tip of the nose 5. Incised wound S x 1 x 1 cmm blood clots ++ Left shoulder joint 6. Incised wound 3 x 2 x i cmm blood clots ++ Left head of humerous 7. Incised wound 4 x 2 x 1 cmm blood clots ++ 3 cmm below to the left tubital fossa 8. Incised wound 2 x 1 x i-i/2 cmm Blood Clots ++ 6 cmm below to the left Patella 2002 page 4 of 8 incised wound 12 x 2 x 8-1/2 cms with Starting from head of humerous of fracture of left scapula Blood vessels lower border of scapula (left)injured. All these injuries were, caused by sharp and cutting object. Injury No. 9 was fatal. All injuries were ante mortem. Cause of death was haemorrhage and shock. Death was homicidal and was caused within 18 to 26 hours of the examination. ( 4 ) AS per prosecution Ration Card exhibit (P-2) was seized from the pocket of deceased Bhogiram vide Seizure Memo (Ex. P-2 ). Injury No. 9 was fatal. All injuries were ante mortem. Cause of death was haemorrhage and shock. Death was homicidal and was caused within 18 to 26 hours of the examination. ( 4 ) AS per prosecution Ration Card exhibit (P-2) was seized from the pocket of deceased Bhogiram vide Seizure Memo (Ex. P-2 ). Subedar Singh (PW-15) seized the sugar distribution register of Fair Price Shop (vide Ex. P-28) and handed over the same to Balchand (PW-13 ). Sunder Singh Renwal (PW-12) arrested the appellants and co-accused on 29/12/1985 (vide Ex. P-12) and on discovery made by the appellants seized an axe from Bhujwal (A-2) and Farsa from Hariram (A-1 ). He seized various arms from acquitted co-accused also. Mahesh Swaroop Choubey, (PW-10) Patwari prepared a spot map (Ex. P-11 ). After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Code. ( 5 ) BOTH the appellants and acquitted co-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been falsely implicated due to enmity. ( 6 ) AS already seen the Learned Trial Court convicted both the appellants for murder while he gave the benefit of doubt to co-accused Shripati, Malam Singh, Musahab Singh and Kamal Singh and acquitted them. ( 7 ) THE appellants have challenged their conviction in this Court also. According to their Advocate, the prosecution witnesses have put two contradictory versions. Both of such versions should have been disbelieved. Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3) was not believed by the Trial Court, Son Singh (PW-4) and Santokh Singh (PW-5) had not supported the prosecution. F. I. R. was belated without any explanation. Compliance of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not proved. Evidence was not consistent about place of offence. Weapons of offence were not shown to the Doctor. The whole prosecution case was full of contradictions, inconsistencies and embellishments. ( 8 ) ON the other hand Learned Additional Govt. Advocate has supported the judgment of the Learned Trial Court. According to him conviction of the appellants was well merited. ( 9 ) HOMICIDAL death of the deceased Bhogiram due to injury on his person is well established by Son Singh (PW-4), Santokh Singh (PW-5) and Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3), the eye witnesses. They are supported by Sirdar Singh (PW-2), father and Sauhbhag Singh (PW-6) the brother of the deceased Bhogiram. F. I. R. (Ex. P/5) also supports such story. Dr. ( 9 ) HOMICIDAL death of the deceased Bhogiram due to injury on his person is well established by Son Singh (PW-4), Santokh Singh (PW-5) and Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3), the eye witnesses. They are supported by Sirdar Singh (PW-2), father and Sauhbhag Singh (PW-6) the brother of the deceased Bhogiram. F. I. R. (Ex. P/5) also supports such story. Dr. Girish Chand Shrivatava (PW-14) has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Bhogiram and has noted 9 incised wound on his person. Out of these the injury on left shoulder was fatal. According to him death was due to haemorrhagic shock. All Injuries were ante mortem, death was homicidal. On the other hand appellants have merely shown their ignorance which is of no avail as the same does not rebut the prosecution evidence. Thus, homicidal death of deceased Bhogiram is proved. This finding is confirmed. ( 10 ) THE Learned Trial Court has mainly relied upon statements of Son Singh (PW-4), Santokh Singh (PW-5) and Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3) who are eyewitnesses to the occurrence for his finding that at least both these appellants had caused death of deceased Bhogiram. Such statements find support from Sirdar Singh (PW-2), the father and Sauhbhag Singh (PW-6) the real brother of deceased Bhogiram. All these witnesses are named in F. I. R. (Ex. P-3) lodged as early as on 19/12/1985. Their statements were recorded by Sunder Singh Renewal (PW-12), the Investigating Officer on 20/12/1985. Statements of all these witnesses have been natural and probable. They have been cross-examined at length by the defence and no basic infirmity in their statements is noted. This story is supported by statements of Dr. Girish Chand Shrivastava, (PW -14) who has noted incised wounds on dead body of deceased Bhogiram as detailed earlier in the judgment. Furthermore 8/6/2006 Sunder Singh Renewal (PW-12) who has seized an axe from Bhujwal (A-2) and Farsa from Hariram (A-1) also supports the case of the prosecution. A Ration Card (Ex. P/2) was also seized from the pocket of deceased Bhogiram. The record of Fair Price Shop relating to distribution of sugar clearly shows that on 18/12/1985, deceased Bhogiram had gone to such shop to take sugar and Son Singh (PW-4) and Santokh Singh (PW-5) have also been there. Such register is well proved by Balchand (PW-13), the Secretary of the Society operating the Fair Price Shop. The record of Fair Price Shop relating to distribution of sugar clearly shows that on 18/12/1985, deceased Bhogiram had gone to such shop to take sugar and Son Singh (PW-4) and Santokh Singh (PW-5) have also been there. Such register is well proved by Balchand (PW-13), the Secretary of the Society operating the Fair Price Shop. Appellants have not put any specific defence and have merely denied the story which is merely evasive and this is rightly rejected by the trial court. ii. The Learned Advocate for appellants has vehemently argued that Son Singh (PW-4) and Santokh Singh (PW-5) have not been relied upon even by the prosecution and has been declared hostile and their evidence must have been discarded by the trial court. However, it is now well settled that merely because a witness is deceased hostile or he does not name some of the assailants, his entire evidence cannot be wiped out, if it is corroborated by other reliable evidence, conviction can be based thereupon. State of Bihar. His entire testimony cannot be excluded from consideration Guru Sinyit v. State of Rajasthan, and Bhola Ram Kushwaha v. State of M. P. , evidence of such witness to the extent the same supports the prosecution version is admissible in trial and if corroborated by other reliable evidence can be relied upon to convict the accused. Kolilakhmanbhai Chanabai v. State of Gujarat. Such evidence is not washed of the record altogether. Khujiv State of M. P. 5. It is noteworthy that no enmity or animus to falsely implicate the appellants by these witnesses, is proved. ( 11 ) NEXT contention has been that the prosecution witnesses have put forward two versions in evidence which are contradictory to each other. Obviously Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3) the brother in law of deceased Bhogiram named both these appellants and four acquitted co-accused as assailants. Sirdar Singh (PW-2) and Sauhbhag Singh (PW-6) also named four acquitted co-accused besides the appellants. F. I. R. (Ex. P/3) also names, these appellants and four acquitted co-accused. However, Son Singh (P. W. 4) and Santokh Singh (P. W. 5), the hostile witnesses have named only these two appellants. The learned trial court has convicted only these two appellants who were named by all these witnesses unanimously. The trial Court has proceeded on very firm ground and now it cannot be claimed that even these two appellants be acquitted. The learned trial court has convicted only these two appellants who were named by all these witnesses unanimously. The trial Court has proceeded on very firm ground and now it cannot be claimed that even these two appellants be acquitted. ( 12 ) IT is noteworthy that Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3), Sirdar Singh (PW-2) and Sauhbhag Singh (PW-6) are near relatives of deceased Bhogiram. There has been no reason why they should conceal the names of actual assailants and falsely implicate these appellants. Near relationship with the deceased is not a ground to discard the testimony of a witness. Rachamreddi Chenna Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh. Leela Ram v. State of Haryana. Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar. Gopi Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan. Rather this is a sure guarantee of truth. It is true that Bhaiya Saheb (PW-3) claims that due to enmity against him his brother-in-law deceased Bhogiram was murdered, yet any such enmity in itself is not a ground for disbelieving him. It is well settled that in appreciating the evidence of even inimical or interested witness, the Court is duty bound to be extra cautious and circumspect. Actually the Learned Trial Court was alive to this principle and has acquitted four co-accused who were not named by Son Singh (PW-4) and Santokh Singh (PW5), who had turned hostile. It is well settled that Jalsus in uno Jalsus in omnibus is not a sound rule of appreciation of evidence. The court has power, may a duty to sift the grain from chaff and to act on that part of evidence which is considered safe and trust worthy. Ranveer v. State of Punjab, Bhagwan Jan Patil v. State of Maharashtra, Majju v. State of M. P. ( 13 ) IT has been argued that F. I. R. is belated without any explanation. However, murder was caused near Village Bel Babri at about 6. 30 PM on i8/12/1985. Both Son Singh (PW-4) and Santokb Singh (PW-5) had ran away. Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3), a young man of 26 years rushed to village Dongha to Sirdar Singh (PW-2), the father of the decease (i. Obviously deceased Bhogiram was alive then. Sirdar Singh (PW-2), Bhaiya Saheb (PW-3) and Sauhbhag Singh (PW-6) proceeded to the spot in a bullock cart and reached the spot. Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3), a young man of 26 years rushed to village Dongha to Sirdar Singh (PW-2), the father of the decease (i. Obviously deceased Bhogiram was alive then. Sirdar Singh (PW-2), Bhaiya Saheb (PW-3) and Sauhbhag Singh (PW-6) proceeded to the spot in a bullock cart and reached the spot. They took away the deceased Bhogiram who was still alive to p. S. Banmorekalan. It is noteworthy that Village Donga is at distance of 2 kosas (or 6 Kms) away from the spot (para 5 of Sirdar Singh PW-2 ). Certainly Bhaiya Sahib (P. W. 3) required time to reach Donga, and Sirdar Singh (P. W. 2) Sauhbhag Singh (P. W. 6) required time to proceed to spot. Sirdar Singh (PW-2) in para 8 claims that he reached Banmorekalan in the evening. Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3) in para 6 claims that they reached Banmorekalan at about 2 or 3 PM. F. I. R. (Ex. P-3) was written at about 16: 450n 19/12/1985. It is noteworthy that place of occurrence is about 23 Km away from P. S. Banmorekalan. After reaching P. S. Banmorekalan these witnesses came to know that offence was committed within the jurisdiction of P. S. Khaniyadhana. So they proceeded to P. S. Khaniyadhana which was at a distance of 25 KM from the spot. Distance between P. S. Banmorekalan and P. S. Khaniyadhana has not been established yet it is obvious that spot is situate in interior from where nearest police station was 23 KM away. In these facts the report lodged next day at 4. 4-5 PM cannot be said to be either belated. No reason is suggested why Sirdar Singh (P. W. 1?) or Bhaiya Sahab (P. W. 3) should prefer P. S. Banmorekalan than P. S. Khaniyadhana. Actually they were in confusion. So proceeded to P. S. Banmorekalan Obviously dead body of deceased. Bhogiram was sent from P. S. Banmorekalan for post mortem to P. H. C. Khaniyadhana. Certain other formalities were completed at P. S. Banmorekalan besides record of F. I. R. In the peculiar facts of the case the delay in lodging F. I. R. was neither unusual nor enough to give rise to any suspicion of concoction or fabrication. Bhogiram was sent from P. S. Banmorekalan for post mortem to P. H. C. Khaniyadhana. Certain other formalities were completed at P. S. Banmorekalan besides record of F. I. R. In the peculiar facts of the case the delay in lodging F. I. R. was neither unusual nor enough to give rise to any suspicion of concoction or fabrication. ( 14 ) IT is true that Sirdar Singh (PW-2) in para 8 and Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3) in para 4 have admitted that Station Officer of P. S. Banmorekalan had recorded their statements. Certainly copies of such statements are not provided to the appellants. However, appellants did not pray for such supply of copies to them in trial Court. They did not inquire the public prosecutor, whether any such statement was recorded. Laxman Singh (PW-8) has proved that the then S. O. of P. S. Banmorekalan Mr. Vikas Upadhyay who scribed F. I. R. (Ex. P/3) has expired and thus he is not available for evidence. Not a single suggestion is put to Sunder Singh Renwal (PW-12) that any such statement was recorded by Police Banmorekalan. In these facts it is not proved that any such statement was recorded by S. O. of P. S. Banmorekalan. Mere admissions of P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 are not enough. Thus, the claim that the appellants are prejudiced by non-supply of copies of such statements is not well founded. ( 15 ) IT is true that compliance of section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not proved. However, there has been no allegation that the F. I. R. (Ex. P-3) was ante timed. In Dayaram v. State of M. P. , mere delay in dispatch of F. I. R. is held not a circumstance to throw out prosecution case. Relying on State of U. P. v. Gokaran, Ishwar Singh v. State of U. P. , in Mehraj Singh v. State of U. P. , the same view is taken. This has merely been a lapse or carelessness on the part of prosecution not affecting the merits of the case. Shivram v. State of U. P. No capital can be made out of this. ( 16 ) NO over emphasis can be given to the contention that the weapons of offence were not shown to the Doctor and his opinion was not taken. Shivram v. State of U. P. No capital can be made out of this. ( 16 ) NO over emphasis can be given to the contention that the weapons of offence were not shown to the Doctor and his opinion was not taken. Certainly evidence as to spot of offence is not conflicting. Sirdar Singh (PW-2) in para 5 and Bhaiya Sahab (PW-3) in para 3 claims that deceased Bhogiram was found in the field of Ghuman Singh, While Ghuman Singh (PW-9) and Mahesh Swaroop Choubay (PW-10) Patwari said that spot is situate in the field of Kammod Singh is not a material discrepancy as both Sirdar Singh (PW-2) and Bhaiya Saheb (PW-3) belong to other villages than Bel Bawari and thus are not expected to know to whom the field belonged. The factum that the sugar or the blood stained crop from spot was not, seized by the Police, though Sirdar Singh (PW-2) had claimed that sugar and blood were there on spot, is of no consequence as Sunder Singh Renwal (PW-12) S. O. could reach the spot only on 20/12/1985 i. e. , the third clay of the occurrence. All these so called discrepancies do not touch the core of the prosecution case. They are not, material and are not enough to discard the case of prosecution. ( 17 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellants has drawn our attention to Jackaran Singh v. State of Punjab, and has claimed that the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. However, in that case facts were different. There in FIR, it was claimed that appellants had muffled faces while in evidence the witnesses had identified the appellant. Therein recovery of crime weapons was also found unreliable. ( 18 ) NEXT question is whether conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Code can be maintained. It is noteworthy that learned trial Judge had framed charges under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Code. No charge under Section 302/149 of the Code was framed, so there can be no complaint about absence of charge under Section 302 of the Code. Anyhow, the learned Advocate for the appellants had argued that as per the post mortem report 9th injury starting from head of humerous to lower border of left scapula was fatal, while other injuries were simple. Anyhow, the learned Advocate for the appellants had argued that as per the post mortem report 9th injury starting from head of humerous to lower border of left scapula was fatal, while other injuries were simple. In that fracture of left scapula and head of left humerous was also noted. However. Dr. Girishchandra Shrivastva (PW 14) has opined that cause of death was haemorrhagic shock. Obviously, bleeding had been there from all the injuries on person of deceased. Obviously both the appellants and other acquitted co-accused were alleged to have assaulted the deceased conjointly. Of course, benefit of doubt has been extended to 4 acquitted co-accused. 19. AIR 1995 SC 2345 . even, then conviction of these two appellants under Section 302 of the Code is not improper. Mention of Section 34 of the Code was not either essential or necessary. Thus, such conviction can be upheld. ( 19 ) AS to sentence, the trial Court has awarded the lesser sentence. Sentence of life imprisonment is the minimum sentence prescribed for an offence under Section 302 of the Code. Though of course, offence was committed on 18/12/1985, conviction was recorded by the trial Court on 22/11/1986. Thus, more than 16 years have elapsed since the offence and this appeal is also pending since 1986, yet this is of no avail to the appellant. The minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 302 of the Code has to be maintained. Thus there is no substance in this appeal. Conviction and sentence recorded by trial Court are hereby confirmed. The appellants are on bail. They shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri within 15 days of this judgment to serve out of remaining sentence. In case of default non-bailable warrants shall be issued against them. The order of the trial Court, that the case property be destroyed after appeal, is also hereby confirmed. ( 20 ) THUS there is no substance in this appeal. The same is dismissed in toto. Appeal dismissed. .