Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. Rulia Ram, his wife Nirmala and two sons, namely Jagbir and Parveen along with one Sanjay son of Ram Kumar, were tried under Sections 302, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code. The trial culminated into the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25-10-2002 recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, They all have been held guilty for an offence under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year as also to pay fine of Rs. 2000.00 each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. They have been held guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment as also to pay fine of Rs. 5000.00 each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of two months. All the sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that present appeal CW/CW/PJ10/2005/GSD-RK/AKC/4271/2005 has been filed. 2. The occurrence leading to death of Rajesh son of Bharat Bhushan, as per prosecution version, had taken place on the intervening night of 21 /22-9-2000 at 1.30 am. in front of house of Brij Mohan, Jamalpura Mohalla, Sonepat. FIR, Ex. PG, with regard to the incident came to be recorded at 3.35 a.m. on 22-9-2000, whereas, special report with regard to the incident reached the concerned Magistrate at 5.30 a.m. on the same day. 3. Suresh Sharma, PW 7 author of the FIR, while making his statement before Karan Singh, Inspector, stated that he was working as General Manager in the Haryana Bravery Factory, Murthal. On the night of occurrence, a Jagrata was being performed in front of house of Rulia Ram son of Mauji Ram. He and Sandeep Sharma, residents of Sona Colony, were present at the Jagrata. Rajesh son of Bharat Bhushan was also present there at Jagrata. Jagbir son of Rulia Ram , Parveen son of Rulia Ram, Rulia Ram son of Mauji Ram and Sanjay son of Ram Kumar were also present there at Jagrata. Jagbir, Parveen and Sanjay were playing cards there. Rajesh son of Bharat Bhushan was also present there at Jagrata. Jagbir son of Rulia Ram , Parveen son of Rulia Ram, Rulia Ram son of Mauji Ram and Sanjay son of Ram Kumar were also present there at Jagrata. Jagbir, Parveen and Sanjay were playing cards there. At this, Rajesh dissuaded them from playing cards saving "you should not play cards at the Jagrata." Thereupon, Jabir, Parveen, Rulia Ram and Sanjay got annoyed and started hurling abuses to Rajesh. Rajesh threw their cards. At this, Jagbir, Parveen, Rulia Ram and Sanjay came out side from the house of Rulia Ram. Nirmla wife of Rulia Ram was also along with them. Jagbir. Parveen and Rulia Ram were having iron pipes in their hands while Nirmala and Sanjay were having dandas. On seeing them, Rajesh stood up and started going from there. When Rajesh reached near the house of Brij Mohan, Jagbir, Parveen and Rulia Ram struck him with iron pipes, which hit him on the left side of his head. As a sequel thereto, Rajesh fell down. Whereupon , Nirmala gave danda blow, which hit on the eye lid of his right eye. Sanjay also gave danda blows, to him, which hit him on both calves of his legs and waist. All the accused had been raising exhortations saying "Kill him. He should not go scot-free." When he and Sandeep stepped forward to take care of Rajesh, the accused fled away. It was about 1.30/2.00 Oclock at night. After leaving Sandeep for supervision of the dead body of Rajesh he came to lodge the report. 4. The prosecution, in its endeavour to bring home the offence against the appellants, examined Dr. R.K. Kataria as PW 11, who stated that on 22-9-2000, he along with Dr. Arun Garg and Dr. C.P. Arora, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Rajesh son of Bharat Bhushan. Panel of the Doctors found the following injuries on the dead body of Rajesh :- - "1. A lacerated wound of size 8 x 4 cm on the right side of aforesaid, just anterior to the anterior hairline, bone deep with clotted blood in and around the wound. 2. A lacerated wound 30 cms x 12 cms on the left side of scalp in the left parieto occipical region. The underlying bones were fractured and separated . A lacerated wound of size 8 x 4 cm on the right side of aforesaid, just anterior to the anterior hairline, bone deep with clotted blood in and around the wound. 2. A lacerated wound 30 cms x 12 cms on the left side of scalp in the left parieto occipical region. The underlying bones were fractured and separated . The brain and meniages in this area were badly lacerated, damages and bits of brain tissue coming out of the wound. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound and in the carnial cavity. Ondissection of the skull, there was extensive haemotoma in the right frontal and parietal region., extending upto the orbit involving both eye-lids of the right eye. On further dissection, there was fracture of right frontal bone, left parietal and occipital bones. On removing the vault, there was blood in all the cranial fossi. 3. There was a contusion of size 12 cms x 4 cms in the middle of back. There was infilteration of blood in the subcutanious tissue. 4. In abrasion of reddish colour size 5 cms x 2 cms on the dorsum of the foot." 5. Cause of death in the opinion of Doctor was head injury, which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. Doctor further opined probable duration, that had elapsed, between injuries and death as instantaneous and between death and post mortem examination 6 to 24 hours. 6. Rajinder, who was examined as PW 2, stated that on 22-9-2000, he saw a dead body in Jamalura locality of Sonepat, near the house of Brij Mohan son of Devi Chand, which was of Rajesh Sharma son of Bharat Bhushan Sharma. The police also came there . They got the dead body identified from them and took blood-stained earth, which was put in a plastic container. Slippers of deceased Rajesh and playing cards lying there were also taken into possession. In his cross-exmination, he stated that PW Sandeep was also present at the spot along with 2-3 more persons but he would not know as to who were they. Near the place of occurrence, Jagrata was going on. Carpet was laid and worshiping place was also existing at the place of Jagrata but nobody was there. Suresh Sharma, the first informant, PW 7, and Sandeep Sharma, PW 8, fully supported the prosecution version. Near the place of occurrence, Jagrata was going on. Carpet was laid and worshiping place was also existing at the place of Jagrata but nobody was there. Suresh Sharma, the first informant, PW 7, and Sandeep Sharma, PW 8, fully supported the prosecution version. Ashok Kumar, who was examined as PW 9, stated that on 24-9-2000 at about 6.30 a.m. he had gone to Police Station City, Sonepat, in connection with some work. Appellant Jagbir was interrogated by the police in his presence. Jagbir told that they had murdered Rajesh in the night of 21-9-2000 with pipes. Appellant Rulia Ram also stated likewise. Jagbir also told that the pipe, with which Rajesh was murdered, was concealed In his house in the store on the right hand side. The police recorded his statement, which he signed. At that time, Govind, resident of their village, was also with him. Thereafter, Rulia Ram was interrogated. He also stated that they had murdered Rajesh in the night of 21/22-9-2000 with the pipes and that he had concealed the pipe under the heap of dung cake, near the house of Sanjay accused. His statement was also reduced into writing, which he signed as well. Thereafter, the police told him that they were to go for recovery and asked to sit down. The police took him in gypsy. Appellants Jagbir and Rulia Ram were also put in the same gypsy. Appellant Jagbir led the police to his house. After entering the house from the side of store, he took out a pipe and also the clothes, comprising baniyan and pant, lying under the pit. Pipe, banian and pant were blood stained. Thereafter, Rulia Ram led the police to a heap of dungs at a distance from his house, after going through a narrow street and took out the pipe from that heap. There was a ber tree near the heap of dung. He took out kurta and pyajama from underneath the same. Pipe Ex. P7, was then recovered from appellant Jasbir. Two days thereafter, appellant Parveen, in his presence, stated that he had murdered Rajesh with the pipe along with his family members, which he told that the same had been concealed in the shop of bangles near his house and he could get the same recovered. Pipe Ex. P7, was then recovered from appellant Jasbir. Two days thereafter, appellant Parveen, in his presence, stated that he had murdered Rajesh with the pipe along with his family members, which he told that the same had been concealed in the shop of bangles near his house and he could get the same recovered. After his statement was recorded, Parveen opened the shutter of that shop and got the pipe and clothes, comprising pant and shirt, recovered. There is no need to make a mention of other evidence led by the prosecution but for the statement made by Karan Singh, Inspector, who was examined, as PW 12, who deposed with regard to the steps that he had taken while investigating the cases. The prosecution also tendered in evidence report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Ex. PR 7. When examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Nirmala, besides denying the incriminating material put to her, further stated that after the Chowki/Jagrata was over, they had gone to the bed and slept at about 11.00 p.m. and when they got up in the morning, she came to know about this incident . She stated that she would not know how and who had murdered Rajesh and that she has been falsely implicated in this case. When the police was told that Rajesh was a rogue and used to garb the lands of others, it became annoyed and falsely implicated them in this case. They were arrested by the police on the same very day. They were given severe beatings and their specimen writings were obtained on many blank papers. Due to beating , they also started bleeding, which had also stained clothes. The other appellants, in their statements made under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, stated likewise. In their defence , they examined Vimal Kishore and Parvinder Rohilla as D.W . 1 and D.W. 2 respectively. 8. Learned counsel representing the appellants contend that the eye-witnesses, namely, Suresh Sharma, P.W. 7 and Sandeep Sharma, P.W. 8, being related to the deceased, were highly interested in success of the prosecution case. They were , in fact, not present at the scene of occurrence and were made witnesses simply with a view to prop up the prosecution version. 8. Learned counsel representing the appellants contend that the eye-witnesses, namely, Suresh Sharma, P.W. 7 and Sandeep Sharma, P.W. 8, being related to the deceased, were highly interested in success of the prosecution case. They were , in fact, not present at the scene of occurrence and were made witnesses simply with a view to prop up the prosecution version. It is then urged that ocular account of the injuries to deceased Rajesh is not in conformity with medical evidence and for that reason as well, it has to be held that they were not present at the scene of crime and further that the FIR in this case is delayed and there is no explanation whatsoever coming forth as to why there was a delay of more than two hours in lodging the FIR. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of learned counsel, as noted above, but, in totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any merit in either of the same. Taking the last point with regard to delay in lodging the FIR as the first one, we would only mention that the occurrence in this case had taken place on the intervening night of 21/22-9-2000 at 1.30 or 2.00 am and the FIR came to be lodged at 3.35 a.m. at night itself. It may be true that first informant was on a scooter and the Police Station was not far away from the place of occurrence but considering the fact that Rajesh had died, which fact must have been confirmed by the eye witness first, and that it was a night time, it would normally take an hour or so in lodging FIR. Further , even if the first infomant might have reached the Police Station after 15 or 30 minutes, it was an odd hour and it would have certainly taken some time to find out the concerned police officer for lodging the report. In the circumstances aforesaid, we are of the view that there Is hardly any delay in lodging the First Information Report. The eye-witnesses, as such, may be related to the deceased, as has come in the evidence, but that at the most, would require the Court to examine their evidence with a greater care and caution. In the circumstances aforesaid, we are of the view that there Is hardly any delay in lodging the First Information Report. The eye-witnesses, as such, may be related to the deceased, as has come in the evidence, but that at the most, would require the Court to examine their evidence with a greater care and caution. Nothing at all has been pointed out during the course of arguments that may detract from their sworn and consistent testimony and we may mention that they have subjected to lengthy cross -examination and yet without a semblance of blemish. Their presence at the odd hours at night has been explained as, Suresh Sharma, PW 7 stated that they were coming back from Bawa Cinema, which was taken by the son of his uncle, and that they were going to their house from the Cinema. Their presence is otherwise also established from the facts that Suresh Sharma lodged FIR at 3.35 a.m. on the same night, which would not be possible if he would not be present at the scene of occurrence. Nobody, who might have seen the occurrence, would go to his house to Inform about the incident at 1.30 or 2.00 a.m. at night and if that was, however, to happen, it would have taken far more time in lodging the FIR. That apart, if some one might have come to inform about the incident, he would have well informed to the police himself. Rajinder, P.W. 2, who is admittedly from the same locality, established the presence of the witnesses immediately after the FIR was lodged when police reached the spot. If they were not present at the scene of occurrence, it would not be possible to secure their presence by calling them from their houses. We also do not find any reason whatsover, which might have actuated the eye-witnesses to rope in innocent people, which in turn would certainly let the real culprit go scot-free. Nothing has even been suggested in the lengthy and gruelling cross-exmination that may show that they had any animosity with the appellants. 10. We also do not find any reason whatsover, which might have actuated the eye-witnesses to rope in innocent people, which in turn would certainly let the real culprit go scot-free. Nothing has even been suggested in the lengthy and gruelling cross-exmination that may show that they had any animosity with the appellants. 10. Learned counsel representing the appellants, while endeavouring to show that there is contradiction in the ocular and medical evidence, have aruged that appellants Rulia Ram, Jagbir and Parveen are said to have given a blow each on the left side of the head of the deceased with pipes whereas, appellant Nirmala is stated to have given a danda blow, which hit Rajesh on the right eye, whereafter, appellant Sanjay gave a danda blow on his calves. If ocular account of the incident may be correct, there should be three head Injuries on the person of Rajesh whereas, the Doctor has reported only one injury on his head. This contention is raised, perhaps, being oblivious of the fact that right In the beginning, the Investigating Officer had sought opinion of the concerned Doctor with regard to head injury found on the dead body of Rajesh. Opinion of the Doctor, Ex.PN, is on the records of the case. The Investigating Officer in the application seeking opinion of the Doctor mentioned that combined blows were alleged to have been inflicted by three persons on the head of deceased Rajesh and, therefore, there was a requirement of the opinion to know as o whether injuries shown in PMR could be caused by multiple blows. The Doctor on the application aforesaid opined that injuries 1 and 2 could be caused by multiple blows by blunt weapon. Far from questioning the Doctor as to how injuries on the head of Rajesh could be the result of multiple blows , what was rather put to him would support the prosecution version. On the suggestion put to him by the defence counsel, he stated that it is incorrect that to cause injury No. 2, one has to give two blows from two different directions and at two different times. This suggestion would rather show that the injury found on the head of the deceased was not the. result of single , blow. It is settled proposition of law that if ocular evidence is believed to be true, it has to be given credence. This suggestion would rather show that the injury found on the head of the deceased was not the. result of single , blow. It is settled proposition of law that if ocular evidence is believed to be true, it has to be given credence. It can be disbelieved only if it may be totally Incompatible and contrdictory to the medical evidence. If there be available an explanation for something that may be obscure, even then it is the version of the eye-witness, which has to be given precedence. In the present case, however, we do not find any contradiction between ocular and medical evidence as, the Doctor clearly stated that the injuries found on the head of deceased Rajesh could be the result of multiple blows. It may be mentioned that the Doctor in his cross-examination had also stated that injury No. 2 started from parietal area and went upto the occipital region. The injury was massive as it extended and skull was disfigured in the injured area. The same was 30 cms x 12 cms. 11. The upshot of the discussion made above is that there is no merit in this appeal and we have no hesitation in dismissing the same, thus, upholding the order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.