K. N. OJHA, J. Both these appeals have been preferred against the same judgment dated 22-1-1997, passed by learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, in S. T. No. 1029 of 1996, State v. Basant Singh and 2 others, by which appellants Basant Singh and Udai Singh have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and appellant Bharat Singh is convicted under Section 302 IPC and each one of them is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 also and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of six months. On realisation of fine a sum of Rs. 10,000 is to be given to Smt. Pushpa Devi, widow of deceased Kripal Singh. 2. Appellants Basant Singh and Udai Singh were represented by Sri Ramendra Asthana, Sri Anil Srivastava and Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Advocates, but they did not appear to advance arguments. Sri Amar Saran, Advocate, was appointed amicus curiae for accused Bharat Singh, who is confined in Jail. Sri Amar Saran agreed and argued the appeal for all the three appellants. 3. According to prosecution, deceased Kripal Singh is the son of accused Basant and real brother of accused Bharat Singh. Udai Singh, another accused is real uncle of Kripal Singh. Basant Singh and Udai Singh caught hold of Kripal Singh alias Badshah Singh aged about 28 years, on 27-5-1996 at 9. 30 a. m. near the house of Gulab Singh in their village Nasara, Police station Narwal, district Kanpur Nagar and Bharat Singh pierced iron bar in the abdomen of Kripal Singh resulting in his instantaneous death. Informant Smt. Pushpa Devi, widow of the deceased, lodged FIR under Sections 302, 506 IPC bearing Crime No. 91/96 at police station Narwal, district Kanpur Nagar on the same day at 10. 30 a. m. against all the three appellants. The distance of the police station is 2 km. from the place of occurrence. 4. It is alleged in the FIR that Smt. Pushpa Devi has been living with her husband Kripal Singh in her room in the same house in which accused live, which is situated in village Nasara, police station Narwal, district Kanpur Nagar. Basant Singh accused, father of the deceased, did not give share of deceased to him in landed property. When deceased insisted, threatening was given to get him killed. On 27-5-1996 at about 9. Basant Singh accused, father of the deceased, did not give share of deceased to him in landed property. When deceased insisted, threatening was given to get him killed. On 27-5-1996 at about 9. 30 p. m. when Kripal Singh was going to Kanpur Nagar to attend his duty, as he was in private service, and reached near the house of Gulab Singh, Basant Singh and Udai Singh caught hold of him and Bharat Singh stabbed iron bar in his stomach, resulting in his instantaneous death. Post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Kripal Singh, aged about 28 years was done in the mortuary of Kanpur Nagar on 28-5-1996 at 11. 30 a. m. and following ante-mortem injury was found: (1) Punctured wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. x abdominal cavity deep 12 cm. below right nipple. 5. At the time of post-mortem examination rigor mortis passed off from both extremities. Eyes were closed. Peritoneum was punctured on right side. In abdominal cavity 1. 5 litre blood was present. In stomach 4 ounce fluid was present. Small intestine contained half full gases and big intestines contained half full faecal matter. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury. 6. Chick report was prepared by P. W. 1 constable Hanuman Prasad, investigation was started by PW-5 Hoti Lal Verma who prepared inquest report, site-plan and recovery memo of iron bar, which was recovered from the possession of appellant Bharat Singh. The recovery memo is Ext. Ka-11. The recovery is said to have been made from the place near Balika Vidyalaya, Narwal. Rest investigation was completed by PW-6 police sub-inspector Babu Singh, who recorded the statements of eye-witnesses P. W. 3 Smt. Pushpa Devi and P. W. 4 Chhanga Singh. Iron bar, pant, shirt, underwear, shoes and trousers of the deceased were sent to chemical examiner, on which human blood was found. After the charge- sheet was submitted, the case was committed to the Court of Session and the charge was framed by learned IX Addl. Sessions Judge against Basant Singh and Udai Singh under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and against Bharat Singh under Section 302 IPC. 7. Prosecution examined P. W. 1 constable Hanuman Prasad, who prepared chick report, PW 2 Dr. Sessions Judge against Basant Singh and Udai Singh under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and against Bharat Singh under Section 302 IPC. 7. Prosecution examined P. W. 1 constable Hanuman Prasad, who prepared chick report, PW 2 Dr. Y. K. Nigam, who performed autopsy on the dead-body of Kripal Singh, eye-witnesses P. W. 3 Smt. Pushpa Devi and P. W. 4 Chhanga Singh, P. W. 5 Sub-Inspector Hoti Lal Verma and P. W. 6 Babu Singh. The last two were investigating officers. 8. The accused denied their participation in the crime. It was alleged that Basant Singh is the father of the deceased Kripal Singh. He was sitting at his betel shop in village Bhagawan Khera which is at a distance of 2 Km. from his village Nasara where he was told at 8. 00 a. m. that two unknown persons had committed murder of Kripal Singh. The case of Udai Singh is that he was admitted in a nursing home in Lal Bunglow of city Kanpur Nagar and the injuries were caused by two unknown persons in village Nasara, Police station Narwal, district Kanpur Dehat on 27-5-1996 at 10. 30 p. m. It is also alleged that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the crime by Smt. Pushpa Devi and her father. It is further alleged that Smt. Pushpa Devi and Chhanga Singh witnesses were not present in village Nasara at the time of the occurrence. 9. When none appeared for the appellants Basant Singh and Udai Singh, Sri Amar Saran, amicus curiae, was permitted to argue the case for them also. Arguments of Sri Amar Saran, amicus curiae and learned A. G. A. have been heard and the judgment is being delivered on merits. 10. Two eye-witnesses have been examined in this case. They are P. W. 1 Smt. Pushpa Devi, widow of Kripal Singh and P. W. 4 Chhanga Singh, father of Smt. Pushpa Devi, who was resident of district Fatehpur and was present in the village of Smt. Pushpa Devi, as there was some dispute of property. These witnesses have made consistent statement that the share of Kripal Singh was not being given in the landed property by the accused persons. Therefore, dispute did take place. Deceased and the appellants where living in the same house in different rooms in village Nasara, police station Narwal, district Kanpur Nagar. These witnesses have made consistent statement that the share of Kripal Singh was not being given in the landed property by the accused persons. Therefore, dispute did take place. Deceased and the appellants where living in the same house in different rooms in village Nasara, police station Narwal, district Kanpur Nagar. Chhabboo Singh and Chandra Pal Singh alias Gola Singh were two brothers. Chhabboo Singh has two sons Basant Singh and Udai Singh, who are accused. Basant Singh had three sons, Bharat Singh, Kripal Singh and Baljit. Smt. Pushpa Devi, informant is the wife of Kripal Singh. Chandra Pal Singh had no son, Kripal Singh used to live with him. Witnesses have stated that Chandra Pal Singh had assured to give his landed property to Kripal Singh. Kripal Singh was demanding this share in the house and landed property of Chhabboo Singh to which appellants did not agree. Udai Singh used to say that he had purchased the property of Chandra Pal Singh also. Panchayat was also earlier called for due to this dispute. On 27-5-1996 at 9. 30 a. m. , when Kripal Singh, who was employed at a private shop in Kanpur Nagar, was going out of his village. His wife and others also were at some distance from him. When he reached the house of Gulab Singh of the same village, Basant Singh and Udai Singh caught hold of him and Bharat Singh pierced iron bar in the stomach of Kripal Singh, who died on the spot. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by P. W. 1 Smt. Pushpa Devi and P. W. 4 Chhanga Singh, her father. The appellants were successful in making their escape good. The occurrence is of broad day light. The Investigating Officer P. W. 5 Hoti Lal Verma, police sub-inspector reached the spot on the same day, prepared site-plan inquest report. Thus, we subscribe to the view of the learned Sessions Judge that murder of Kripal Singh was committed in village Nasara, police station Narwal, district Kanpur Nagar on 27-5-1996 at 9. 30 a. m. as the fact of death, time and place is not disputed by the appellants and there is sufficient evidence to prove the fact. The dead-body of Kripal Singh was recovered from the place of the occurrence. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted the FIR is too prompt. 30 a. m. as the fact of death, time and place is not disputed by the appellants and there is sufficient evidence to prove the fact. The dead-body of Kripal Singh was recovered from the place of the occurrence. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted the FIR is too prompt. The police station is at a distance of two km. from the scene of occurrence. Both eye-witnesses were present on the spot. The occurrence is of broad day light. The real culprits were seen by Smt. Pushpa Devi. Therefore, there was no confusion as to who caused the injury. In these circumstances, she got the FIR lodged at the police station, which is at a distance of 2 km. from the place of occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the FIR is not too prompt and it does not suffer from any deliberation and consultation. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the investigating officer did not find blood on the earth. It means, murder of Kripal Singh was not committed near the house of Gulab Singh. Iron rod, pant, shirt and underwear was sent to scientific laboratory Mahanagar, Lucknow and the opinion was received that these exhibits contained human blood. The dead-body of Kripal Singh was lying near the house of Gulab Singh and 1 1/2 litre blood was found in his stomach. It means the blood was collected inside the body and in such circumstances, if the blood was not found on the earth, it does not mean that murder was committed at some other place. 13. The next argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that if Smt. Pushpa Devi, widow of Kripal Singh would have been at the place where injury was caused, accused persons would have caused injury to her also. A perusal of the record shows that it was deceased Kripal Singh who demanded the share in the land and house. The problem was from Kripal Singh and not from his wife Smt. Pushpa Devi. In such circumstance, it is not unnatural that injury was caused by Bharat Singh to Kripal Singh and not to Smt. Pushpa Devi, who was empty handed at the spot and could not offer any meaningful resistance to him. 14. The problem was from Kripal Singh and not from his wife Smt. Pushpa Devi. In such circumstance, it is not unnatural that injury was caused by Bharat Singh to Kripal Singh and not to Smt. Pushpa Devi, who was empty handed at the spot and could not offer any meaningful resistance to him. 14. It is further submitted by the learned defence Counsel that two sisters of Smt. Pushpa Devi are married in the same village. She used to frequently visit the residences of her sisters due to which her husband Kripal Singh was not satisfied and therefore, it may be that he would have committed suicide. If such plea is taken by the defence, burden is on the accused to prove it. There is nothing in the evidence to show that there was any dispute between Kripal Singh and his wife Smt. Smt Pushpa Devi in this matter. Therefore, this plea is also devoid of force. Besides it, a person commits suicide by hanging himself from a fan or iron rod or by lying on railway track or subjecting himself to electric shock and likewise, then it may sound to be probable, but it does not appear natural that a person will pierce iron rod in his chest to commit suicide, because the moment he will pierce the iron rod in his chest, he will feel unbearable pain due to such attempt and in such circumstance he will not be successful in committing suicide. Hence also, it cannot be believed that Kripal Singh committed suicide. 15. Learned defence Counsel has further submitted that P. W. 4 Chhanga Singh, father of Smt. Pushpa Devi is resident of district Fatehpur and there was no occasion for his presence on the spot. There was dispute of property and Chhanga Singh is relative of Smt. Pushpa Devi being her father. In such circumstances, if he had gone to the residence of Kripal Singh and was present at the time of the occurrence, the statement of P. W. 4 Chhanga Singh cannot be disbelieved on the ground that he could not be present there. If Chhanga Singh would not have been present there, he would not have made detailed reply of the questions asked in cross-examination. He cannot be disbelieved only because he is the relative being the father of the wife of the deceased, he having firmly withstood the test of cross- examination. If Chhanga Singh would not have been present there, he would not have made detailed reply of the questions asked in cross-examination. He cannot be disbelieved only because he is the relative being the father of the wife of the deceased, he having firmly withstood the test of cross- examination. 16. Learned Counsel for the defence further submits that iron rod is said to have been recovered near the wall of Government Girls College, Narwal. It is submitted that if a person uses an iron rod, he will throw it away rather than he will keep it with himself. When a person was in anger and he committed murder, he was chased immediately by the police and on the same day if he was arrested and iron bar was recovered, there is nothing unnatural in it. 17. Learned defence Counsel has further submitted that there is no independent witness of the occurrence. It is noteworthy that the occurrence did take place in the same family and no person of the village likes to involve himself in such dispute, where there are chances that such family members may get the matter compromised and such witness will be inimical to the whole family. The statement of Smt. Pushpa Devi cannot be disbelieved. She was aged about 24 years when her husband was murdered. She lives in one room of the same house where accused live. Her husband died and she is all alone. She has to live in the same society. It cannot be believed that in order to harass the accused persons, she has falsely lodged the FIR. 18. Learned Counsel for the defence has further relied on medical jurisprudence by Dr. J. P. Modi in which Dr. Modi has expressed opinion that hair becomes loose within 48 to 72 hours after death. In instant case the occurrence is said to have taken place on 27-5-1996 and the post-mortem examination of the dead-body of Kripal Singh was done on 28-5-1996 at 11. 30 a. m. It means the murder was committed about one day before, Dr. Modi has written in his medical jurisprudence that it is impossible to give exact time when putrefactive process develops in a dead-body because such process is only a sign of death. It is a slow process and it differs according to climatic condition of the place. Besides it, P. W. 2 Dr. Modi has written in his medical jurisprudence that it is impossible to give exact time when putrefactive process develops in a dead-body because such process is only a sign of death. It is a slow process and it differs according to climatic condition of the place. Besides it, P. W. 2 Dr. Y. K. Nigam, who performed autopsy on the dead-body of Kripal Singh, has himself written in post-mortem examination report that according to signs of the body, death had taken place about one and a half day before. There may be some marginal error also about time. In such circumstances, if the death did take place one day before and there being no science which may exactly fix the time of death with specific details in minute and second, the time of murder cannot be doubted and there is nothing inconsistent in the FIR, post-mortem examination report and statement of witnesses in respect of time of death of Kripal Singh. 19. In this case, Kripal Singh deceased is the son of accused Basant Singh. Udai Singh is his uncle and Bharat Singh is brother. According to prosecution, Basant Singh and Udai Singh caught hold of Kripal Singh and Bharat Singh pierced iron bar in his chest, resulting into his instantaneous death. It does not appear natural that the whole family was so much annoyed with the conduct of Kripal Singh that father and uncle caught hold of him and real brother pierced iron bar in his chest. Kripal Singh had not caused any injury to his father and uncle, which would have irritated them for catching hold of Kripal Singh. Besides it, if anger or plan to commit murder of Kripal Singh would have been such that Basant Singh and Udai Singh caught hold of him, not only one injury would have been caused by Bharat Singh to Kripal Singh, but so many injuries would have been caused so that it could be assured that his death had taken place. Bharat Singh is his brother. He pierced iron bar into his chest. It means he had intention to commit murder and he was knowing that by piercing iron bar into vital part of the body like chest, death was imminent. Bharat Singh is his brother. He pierced iron bar into his chest. It means he had intention to commit murder and he was knowing that by piercing iron bar into vital part of the body like chest, death was imminent. Thus, circumstances show that the murder was committed only by Bharat Singh and participation of Basant Singh and Udai Singh by catching hold of Kripal Singh is some what doubtful. As is well known, the element of doubt would go in favour of the concerned accused. 20. In view of above discussion, we arrive at the conclusion that the charges are not proved against Basant Singh and Udai Singh but the charge under Section 302 IPC is proved against Bharat Singh. Hence the appeal partly succeeds. 21. The appeal is partly allowed and the orders of conviction and sentence passed against Basant Singh and Udai Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC are set aside and they are acquitted from the charges. The appeal preferred by Bharat Singh is dismissed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 has been imposed on him and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of six months has been awarded. In case of deposit of fine of Rs. 5,000 whole of it would be given to Smt. Pushpa Devi, widow of deceased Kripal Singh. 22. As per the record, accused Bharat Singh is in Jail, he will serve out the sentence passed against him. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar shall verify from Jail that accused Bharat Singh is actually lodged in Jail in connection with this case. If, he is enjoying his liberty, he shall be arrested and lodged in Jail to serve out sentence. 23. Let a copy of this judgment and order alongwith record of the case be sent to the lower Court for necessary action and compliance under intimation to this Court within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Decided accordingly. .