Judgment Amar Bir Singh Gill, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 110-SB and 160-DB of 2000 as both these appeals arise out of one judgment dated 14.2.2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. 2. Ramesh Kumar, 25 years, Dharamvir, aged 24 years, both residents of Haibowal, Ludhiana, have challenged judgment dated 14.2.2000 of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, convicting Ramesh Kumar and Dharamvir appellants under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and sentencing them to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each; in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each, as well as further convicting Ramesh Kumar and Dharamvir appellants under Section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The appellants were prosecuted before the trial Court on police case that on 25.12.1995, which was Christmas Day and Nand Singh was on leave, a procession in connection with birthday of Guru Gobind Singh was being taken through the city. Nand Singh along with his son Rajinder Pal Singh and one Sher Singh was standing on Hembran Road to witness the procession at about 2.00/2.30 p.m. In the meantime, Ramesh Kumar and Dharamvir accused-appellants came from Gopal Nagar side and challenged Rajinder Pal Singh. Appellant Ramesh Kumar took out a small Kirpan (sword) and attacked Rajinder Pal Singh with the same who in order to ward off the blow raised his right hand and received injury on the same. Appellant Dharamvir took out a knife and gave two blows with it near the right eye of Rajinder Pal Singh. Again Ramesh Kumar appellant gave Kirpan blow thrust-wise in the right flank of Rajinder Pal Singh. On receipt of injuries, Rajinder Pal SIngh fell on the ground. Nand Singh and Sher Singh raised alarm. Both these appellants then fled away with their weapons from the place of occurrence. Nand Singh and Sher Singh then removed Rajinder Pal Singh to D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, in a Maruti car which they had stopped on request. Rajinder Pal Singh succumbed to the injuries in emergency ward of D.M.C. Hospital. Nand Singh and Sher Singh raised alarm. Both these appellants then fled away with their weapons from the place of occurrence. Nand Singh and Sher Singh then removed Rajinder Pal Singh to D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, in a Maruti car which they had stopped on request. Rajinder Pal Singh succumbed to the injuries in emergency ward of D.M.C. Hospital. Nand Singh and Sher Singh then proceeded to the police station to lodge the report but on the way near Rajpura Chowk, Sub Inspector Surjit Chand met them and Nand Singh made statement Exhibit PA of the occurrence before him which was endorsed to the police station and a formal First Information Report Exhibit PA/2 was recorded against the appellants. Sub Inspector Surjit Chand then took along Nand Singh and Sher Singh to the place of occurrence from where he lifted blood stained earth in a sealed parcel and took into possession through memo Exhibit PB attested by Nand Singh and Sher Singh. He also prepared rough site plan Exhibit PG of the place of occurrence. By the time, it had gone dark. Sub Inspector Surjit Chand then came to D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, next morning (26.12.1995) where dead body of Rajinder Pal Singh was lying in the mortuary. He prepared inquest report Exhibit PC on the dead body. Thereafter, he moved request Exhibit PD and entrusted the dead body to Assistant Sub Inspector Ramji Dass and Head Constable Jagdev Singh for taking it for post mortem examination. On the same day, at 12.30 noon, PW9 Dr. Daljit Singh conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Rajinder Pal Singh and observed the following injuries on the dead body :- "1. An incised wound 1" x 1/2" skin deep the lateral part of right eye brow. 2. An incised wound 1-1/4" x 1/4" just below right eye laterally. 3. An incised wound diagonally placed 2" x 1/2" muscle deep on the hypothenar eminence of right hand. 4. An incised wound 1-1/4" x 1/2" (penetrating) ? deep horizontally - obliquely placed on left posterior lateral wall of abdomen about 5-1/2" above iliac crest. On exploration of injury No. 4, underneath muscles were cut and wound was going deep up to kidney (left). Kidney was cut, peritoneum was cut and peritoneal cavity contained blood. All other abdominal and thoraccic organs were healthy, stomach contained about 150 cc of semi digested food. On exploration of injury No. 4, underneath muscles were cut and wound was going deep up to kidney (left). Kidney was cut, peritoneum was cut and peritoneal cavity contained blood. All other abdominal and thoraccic organs were healthy, stomach contained about 150 cc of semi digested food. He gave post mortem report Exhibit PP with pictorial diagram Exhibit PP/1 showing the receipt of injuries and opined that the cause of death of Rajinder Pal Singh was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to vital organs which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He also certified that the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Both the appellants were arrested by Sub Inspector Surjit Chand on 30.12.1995. On interrogation by Sub Inspector Surjit Chand, Ramesh Kumar appellant suffered disclosure statement Exhibit PL and produced small sword stained with blood kept concealed underneath the heap of sand lying close to his plot. The sword was taken into possession in sealed parcel after its sketch Exhibit PM was prepared and the memo was attested by Swaran Singh and Jagdev Singh. Blood- stained earth taken from the place of occurrence and the small sword (Kirpan) recovered at the instance of Ramesh Kumar appellant were received in the office of Chemical Examiner intact with seals. Vide reports Exhibit PS and PT, small Kirpan and the earth etc. contained in the parcels were found stained with blood. Vide report Exhibit PQ, Assistant Serologist found that on the blood stained parcel of earth, the blood stains were disintegrated. However, the stains removed from small kirpan were confirmed to be stained with human blood vide report of Exhibit PR of Assistant Serologist. The appellants, thus, were sent for their trial for the offences under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants abjured the charges framed against them and had claimed trial. 4. The prosecution relied upon testimony of PW1 Nand Singh, PW2 Sher Singh, eye-witnesses, PW3 Assistant Sub Inspector Ramji Dass, PW4 Harminder Singh, Draftsman, PW5 Head Constable Harinder Singh, PW6 Sub Inspector Surjit Chand, PW7 Constable Balbir Singh, PW8 Constable Diwan Singh, PW9 Dr. Daljit Sing Kochhar. Reports of the Serologist Exhibits PQ and PR and that of Chemical Examiner Exhibits PS and PT were tendered into evidence. 5. Daljit Sing Kochhar. Reports of the Serologist Exhibits PQ and PR and that of Chemical Examiner Exhibits PS and PT were tendered into evidence. 5. The appellants in their statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had taken the plea of total denial and claimed false implication on the basis of suspicion. They examined in their defence DW1 Sh. R.S. Pandey in respect of entries in the register maintained in Mortuary of D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana. 6. The learned trial Court being satisfied that the prosecution has proved the charges against these appellants, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid, which is now being challenged in these appeals. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 8. The case of the prosecution rests on the eye-witness account of the occurrence given by Nand Singh and Sher Singh PWs. PW1 Nand Singh is father of the deceased, whereas PW2 Sher Singh is resident of the locality whose house is at a distance of about 800 yards from the house of Nand Singh PW. It is not disputed before us that on the date of occurrence, in celebration of birthday of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, a procession (Nagar Kirtan) was being taken in which hymns from the scriptures were also recited along with the procession. It was also a holiday because of Christmas day of that year. Such processions attract various persons on road side, more so people belonging to Sikh community. It was not unusual for Nand Singh PW, his son Rajinder Pal Singh and Sher Singh PW to have collected on the side of Hembran road to witness the procession. The time of occurrence was stated to be 2.00/2.30 p.m. The procession had not yet passed the area and the eye- witnesses alongwith the deceased were just standing there when in the meantime both the appellants came there and challenged Rajinder Pal Singh. Both of them caused injuries to Rajinder Pal Singh with their respective weapons in quick succession and on alarm raised by Nand Singh PW, the appellants fled away from there. Nand Singh and Sher Singh PWs immediately removed Rajinder Pal Singh in a Maruti car which happened to come there and stopped at the request of Nand Singh PW. However, Rajinder Pal Singh succumbed to his injuries on reaching the emergency ward of D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, and he was declared brought dead. Nand Singh and Sher Singh PWs immediately removed Rajinder Pal Singh in a Maruti car which happened to come there and stopped at the request of Nand Singh PW. However, Rajinder Pal Singh succumbed to his injuries on reaching the emergency ward of D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, and he was declared brought dead. Shri R.S. Ghai, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that in view of the receipt of special report by the Magistrate on the next day of the occurrence at 2.30 p.m., there is inherent weakness in the prosecution case and smacks of deliberations and concoctions since it cannot be ruled out that the First Information Report was ante timed so as to bring it close to the time of occurrence. Receipt of special report only confirms coming into existence of the First Information Report some time earlier to its receipt depending upon the distance of the police station from the Court/residence of the Illaqa Magistrate. It is, no doubt, true that the occurrence took place at about 2.30 p.m. on 25.12.1995 whereas the special report was received by the Illaqa Magistrate on the next day i.e. 26.12.1995 at 2.15 p.m. as per endorsement on Exhibit PA/2. It is in the evidence of Nand Singh and Sher Singh PWs that when the doctor declared Rajinder Pal Singh dead, they proceeded to the police station to lodge the report and on their way when they reached Rajpura Chowk, they met the police party headed by Sub Inspector Surjit Chand before whom Nand Singh PW made statement Exhibit PA. A perusal of the same indicates that the same was recorded at 4.50 p.m. as per endorsement Exhibit PA/1 of Sub Inspector Surjit Chand. Formal First Information Report Exhibit PA/2 mentions the receipt of statement Exhibit PA of Nand Singh PW by entry No. 20 dated 25.12.1995 at 5.15 p.m. in the Daily Diary Register. It also mentions that copy of the First Information Report was sent through special report at the same time. It has also come in the statement that distance of the Court from the police station is 3/4 Kms only. However, mere delay in receipt of the special report by itself is not sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution if, after the occurrence, other necessary proceedings to be conducted by the investigating officer had come into existence. It has also come in the statement that distance of the Court from the police station is 3/4 Kms only. However, mere delay in receipt of the special report by itself is not sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution if, after the occurrence, other necessary proceedings to be conducted by the investigating officer had come into existence. According to Sub Inspector Surjit Chand (PW6), after recording statement Exhibit PA of Nand Singh PW, he proceeded to the place of occurrence i.e. Hembran road. He reached there at about 5.15 p.m. He took into possession blood-stained earth from the spot in sealed parcel, also prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence and by that time it had become night. He went to the hospital next day morning only. Since on the statement of Nand Singh it had come to his knowledge that the injured had already succumbed to his injuries and his dead body was lying in the mortuary of the hospital, it was not unusual for him not to rush to the hospital for recording inquest report etc on the dead body. It is all the more reasonable to accept because the dead body was lying in Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana, and it was to be obtained therefrom and then brought to the Civil Hospital for the purpose of its post mortem report which was to be done on the next morning. It is also in his statement that next day he came to Dayanand Medical College Hospital at 9.00 a.m. and moved an application for receipt of dead body where, on its receipt, he prepared inquest report Exhibit PC on the dead body. He also prepared request Exhibit PH to Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, for post mortem examination and entrusted the dead body alongwith inquest papers to Assistant Sub Inspector Ramji Dass who then took the dead body to the Civil Hospital for the purpose of post mortem examination and the same was performed by PW9 Dr. Daljit Singh Kochhar at 12.30 noon. It has come in the statement of PW9 Dr. Daljit Singh Kochhar that he had initialled police papers No. 1 to 26 and handed over the post mortem report alongwith papers and belongings of the deceased. The police papers bear the initials which include documents at page Nos. 1, 7 and 9. Daljit Singh Kochhar at 12.30 noon. It has come in the statement of PW9 Dr. Daljit Singh Kochhar that he had initialled police papers No. 1 to 26 and handed over the post mortem report alongwith papers and belongings of the deceased. The police papers bear the initials which include documents at page Nos. 1, 7 and 9. Page No. 1 is a printed form of Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, in respect of police information. It is reproduced below with blanks filled in writing underlined :- "Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana. Police Information No. 16073 The S.H.O., Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. This is to inform you that Rajinder Pal Singh s/o Shri Nand Singh has been admitted in New/Old Dayanand Hospital in Causality Unit Cas with Accident/Medicolegal/Burns/Poisoning incident occurred at 2 PM 25.12.95 at Chotti Habowal, LDH. Case brought by Nand Singh s/o Sd. Hazzur Singh r/o 1348/22 Habowal Khurd, LDH P.S. Habowal LDH. Casuality Medical Officer Dr. Rajinder Kumar Time : 2.35 PM Date 25.12.95 Information received by (sic) Designation : HC Date & Time 25.12.95 6.20 AM Call taken by---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harjit Singh 7.05 a.m. Copy to : The Medical Record Deptt. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana. The document at page 7 initialled by the doctor is Transportation Certificate of the dead body i.e. handing over the dead body by the hospital authorities to the police. It is also reproduced below : "Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana. Transportation Certificate Dated : 25.12.95 This is to certify that Rajinder Pal Singh s/o, W/o, D/o Nand Singh was admitted in this Hospital on 25.12.95. He/She expired on 25.12.95 at 2.30 PM. The dead body is being handed over to Police. Signature Rajinder Kumar(SEAL) Name in Block letters RAJINDER KUMAR DATE : 25.12.95, Designation : Registrar TIME : 1015 Deptt. of Surgery Note : Certificate is only for transportation purpose. The document at page 9 is injury report with the name of Rajinder Pal Singh son of Nand Singh and is shown to have been brought to the hospital on 25.12.95 at 2.30 p.m. by Nand Singh. At the place meant of details of injury is mentioned "Brought dead". These papers bear the signatures of Assistant Sub Inspector Ramji Dass in token of receipt of these documents. It has come in the statement of Public Prosecutor that Dr. At the place meant of details of injury is mentioned "Brought dead". These papers bear the signatures of Assistant Sub Inspector Ramji Dass in token of receipt of these documents. It has come in the statement of Public Prosecutor that Dr. Rajinder Kumar, who was on duty on 25.12.1995 in the emergency ward, was not traceable as his whereabouts were not known and as such he was given up. Be that as it may, since these documents bear the signatures of Dr. Daljit Singh Kochhar and he has proved the documents as received alongwith the inquest report, these cannot be ignored from consideration so far as the statements contained through them. As observed above, First Information Report Exhibit PA/2 was recorded at 5.15 p.m. The genuineness of daily diary entry in respect of statement Exhibit PA of the Nand Singh was not questioned in the cross-examination of Sub Inspector Surjit Chand nor Daily Diary Register was referred to support the suggestion that First information Report was created only on 26.12.1995 any time earlier to the inquest proceedings. Simply on account of the conduct of the Constable, who was entrusted with the special report for transmission to the higher authorities including the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate, for not promptly reaching the Magistrate cannot obliterate the effect of the entry in the police station record in respect of the case and the First Information Report. It may also be noticed that the occurrence in this case took place in broad day light at 2.00 or 2.30 p.m. which is supported by direct testimony of eye-witnesses. Unless their presence is doubted or becomes doubtful from their testimony, the delay in receipt of the special report by the Magistrate can only be attributed to the negligence or conduct of the official entrusted with the task of giving special report to the Magistrate and it cannot otherwise have bearing on the merits of the case. The Supreme Court in the case of Babu Ram v. State (Delhi Administration) and others, 1998 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 597, in somewhat similar circumstances, observed that if the evidence establishes that all the details regarding the incident had reached the police station at 5.00 p.m. (in that case), it has to be accepted that there was no delay in recording the First Information Report and that it was truly recorded. It was further observed that even assuming that the special report was received by the Magistrate on next day at 10.00 a.m., that circumstance in the facts of the case cannot be regarded as sufficient to create a doubt regarding genuineness of the time and other details as contained in the First Information Report. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagtar Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1993(1) Recent Criminal Reports 514, has held that in a murder case, if there is delay in sending the report to the Illaqa Magistrate and there is no evidence that the intervening time was utilised for fabricating false version, the delay is not material. It was also observed that delay in delivery of special report can assume significance only if the witnesses to the ocular account were found to be unreliable. The delay in First Information Report reaching the Magistrate, if it had any bearing on the merits of the prosecution case, is a question of fact and negligence on the part of the police cannot affect the prosecution case. The testimony of eye-witnesses Nand Singh and Sher Singh, which hereinafter shall be discussed, leaves no manner of doubt that the police had come into action immediately on receipt of statement Exhibit PA of the Nand Singh and necessary steps towards investigation were taken up. From the facts and circumstances of this case, delayed receipt of special report in this case loses much of its significance to cast any doubt in the prosecution case. 9. It was next contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the presence of eye-witnesses Nand Singh and Sher Singh at the time of occurrence is not established since it is admitted by Nand Singh PW that their clothes got stained with blood from the injuries of the deceased when he was lifted from the place of occurrence and brought to the hospital but clothes of both these eye-witnesses were not taken into possession as corroborative piece of evidence, their presence is doubtful. Besides, no other witness from the locality was cited as a witness of the occurrence when, admittedly, liquor vend, meat shop and other shops near the vicinity of place of occurrence were open. Besides, no other witness from the locality was cited as a witness of the occurrence when, admittedly, liquor vend, meat shop and other shops near the vicinity of place of occurrence were open. If the presence of eye-witnesses is to be established from taking into possession of blood-stained clothes only then it is not difficult in blind murders to show the presence of persons as eye-witnesses by staining their clothes with blood. In this case, as already referred to above, the eye- witnesses and the deceased were just standing awaiting for coming of procession to that side, when suddenly this occurrence took place. As has been explained in the statements of the eye-witnesses, the injuries were given in quick succession and thereafter the accused-appellants fled away. It may or may not be possible for the persons sitting in the shops across Hembran road, if any one was present, even to notice that had actually happened on the road side. It is not the case that no one was joined in the investigation from the locality. It has specifically come in the testimony of Sub Inspector Surjit Chand that he had joined various persons of the locality which he named in the statement. It is not suggested that they were not cited as witnesses as they were not supporting the case. Both the eye-witnesses were already available who had seen the occurrence from very close distance and rather were part of the occurrence. There was hardly any necessity to add number of eye-witnesses in this case, more so, as already observed, the persons, if present in the shops, may or may not have noticed the occurrence which hardly had taken one or two minutes to inflict injuries on the body of Rajinder Pal Singh by these two accused-appellants. Nand Singh PW, admittedly, is father of the deceased. It is not possible to hold that he had given the names of the appellants as assailants of his son falsely if he had seen the occurrence, neither Nand Singh had any enmity with these two accused-appellants to prompt him to make false statement against the appellants and implicate them as assailants of Rajinder Pal Singh. Sher Singh PW is entirely an independent witness. It is not disputed that he is resident of the same Mohalla. He has no relation with Nand Singh PW. Sher Singh PW is entirely an independent witness. It is not disputed that he is resident of the same Mohalla. He has no relation with Nand Singh PW. He had no enmity with either of the appellants and there is no possible reason to reject his sworn testimony in the absence of motive with him to make statement before the Court against these appellants. In his cross-examination, there was no such suggestion as well of any ill will with the accused-appellants. 10. The learned counsel also contended that although it is stated by Nand Singh PW that a few days earlier accused Ramesh had quarrelled with Rajinder Pal Singh deceased when he had blown cigarette smoke towards the deceased, but it is not stated by Nand Singh PW as to how he had come to know about that incident or names or addresses of both these appellants when he gave his statement Exhibit PA to Sub Inspector Surjit Chand. A perusal of the testimony of Nand Singh as PW1 would show that the defence had not questioned him at all about the earlier incident giving him grudge against Ramesh Kumar accused-appellant and his companion nor he was questioned as to how he had known Ramesh Kumar and Dharamvir accused-appellants. If he was not questioned as to how he knew these appellants and their addresses, his statement that he knew these appellants earlier and also the earlier incident cannot be doubted. Learned counsel also stated that Dharamvir appellant had no motive to cause any injury to Rajinder Pal Singh deceased. But until and unless he came alongwith his co-appellant and attacked Rajinder Pal Singh, there was no reason for Nand Singh and Sher Singh PWs to name him as well as one of assailants of Rajinder Pal Singh deceased. 11. It is next contended that, according to Nand Singh PW, the procession had yet not crossed that way, whereas, according to Sub Inspector Surjit Chand PW, the procession had already passed. It may be noted that the place of occurrence where the PWs and the deceased were present was on the Hembran road, whereas Sub Inspector Surjit Chand was present near Rajpura Chowk where the PWs had met him at 4.50 p.m. and that he stated that the procession had already crossed that way. It may be noted that the place of occurrence where the PWs and the deceased were present was on the Hembran road, whereas Sub Inspector Surjit Chand was present near Rajpura Chowk where the PWs had met him at 4.50 p.m. and that he stated that the procession had already crossed that way. It does not amount to contradiction with the testimony of Nand Singh PW because his statement referred to the procession at different place and at different point of time. 12. It was next contended that Nand Singh PW had stated in his statement before the police that Ramesh Kumar appellant had given small kirpan blow on the right flank of the deceased but actually the injury is on the left flank of the deceased. It has come in the testimony of Nand Singh PW that after recording his statement, he wanted to correct his statement regarding receipt of small Kirpan blow on the side of the body of Rajinder Pal Singh deceased and, according to him, Sub Inspector Surjit Chand, stated that he will make the correction somewhat late as he did not want to make cutting in the statement. Be that as it may, an eye-witness is not expected to give camera type observation of the occurrence, more so when the deceased, a human, is not likely to remain static at the time of attack on him and by the time the blow was received by him, he may have changed his position. Besides, it is not brought in the cross-examination of Nand Singh PW the manner in which all the three were standing at the time of occurrence so as to visualise the sequence of attack at the hands of the assailants. The blow aimed at right flank may land at left flank as by that time there is change of position by the victim in his effort to save himself. The injuries observed on the dead body are not disputed as can be caused with a knife as well as dagger type kirpan. The extent of damage caused to vital organs, as observed by Dr. Daljit Singh Kochhar PW, shows the depth of the injury as a result of thrust blow given by the appellant by the weapon causing such injury. The extent of damage caused to vital organs, as observed by Dr. Daljit Singh Kochhar PW, shows the depth of the injury as a result of thrust blow given by the appellant by the weapon causing such injury. Minor discrepancies are bound to be there in the testimony of the witnesses since the witnesses have their own independent observation of the happenings seen by them. Any such minor contradiction or omission in the testimony have no bearing on the merits of the case of the prosecution. 13. The learned counsel lastly contended that the record of mortuary Exhibits D-1 to D-3 shows wrong time about the receipt of dead body of Rajinder Pal Singh. Admittedly, DW1 Sh. R.S. Pandey, who produced the record, was not the author of the entry to give reason as to why the entries of 26.12.1995 also contain the entry about the receipt of dead body of Rajinder Pal Singh on 25.12.1995 after the entry of the next day. In view of the documents already referred to above, it cannot be disputed that the deceased was declared brought dead in the emergency Ward of Dayanand Medical College Hospital, Ludhiana, at 2.30 p.m. If the dead body remained lying in the emergency ward and was not immediately sent to the mortuary and the entry was made subsequently, it hardly has bearing on the merits of the case. 14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on the record, there is no good ground to interfere in the finding of guilt given by the trial Court against the appellants. The findings are justified and based on appreciation of evidence of the prosecution. There is no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed.