Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated August 10, 1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby the learned trial Court had convicted appellants Amar Lal son of Mir Singh and Krishan son of Ram Phal under Section 302/34 IPC, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. The appellants were further convicted under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Complainant Anita, in her statement, recorded before the Investigating Officer Satbir Singh, Sub Inspector, has stated that she was married to Silak Ram in village Gugaheri about three months prior to the occurrence. She resided with her parents at village Mokhra Kheri. On 25.8.1993 at about 11.00 A.M. she along with her brother Azad Singh, her Bhabhi (Azad Singhs wife) Gunni were coming from the fields known as Agia Khet. They were carrying fodder on their heads. She was in front. Her brother Azad Singh and Gunni were following her at a distance of about one killa. When she reached near the boundary of her fields, appellants Amar Lal and Krishan came out of the house of Mir Singh, armed with gandasas. They raised a lalkara that the complainant should be taught a lesson for stealing their thrasher. Amar Lal gave gandasa blows thrustwise in the abdomen and breast of Anita. She fell down. Krishan gave gandasa blows on the wrist of her left hand and right arm. She raised an alarm. Her brother Azad Singh and his wife, Gunni came to her rescue. Appellants Amar Lal and Krishan then inflicted a number of injuries on the head and other parts of the body of her brother Azad Singh with gandasas. Her brother fell down. More injuries were inflicted while he was lying down. Her brothers wife Gunni tried to save him. She was also given gandasa blows. Gunni became unconscious. Mange Ram, the father of the complainant, who was coming towards the fields from his house, saw the occurrence. Her brother fell down. More injuries were inflicted while he was lying down. Her brothers wife Gunni tried to save him. She was also given gandasa blows. Gunni became unconscious. Mange Ram, the father of the complainant, who was coming towards the fields from his house, saw the occurrence. Appellants ran away towards the village on a tractor. About four months prior to the occurrence, the thrasher of Mir Singh had been stolen. Mir Singh suspected that Azad Singh had stolen the thrasher. It is due to this grudge that appellants Amar Lal and Krishan along with Karambir, Mir Singh, Ram Phal and Dharambir inflicted injuries on her, her brother Azad Singh and her brothers wife Gunni. 3. The trial Court, in its order, acquitted Karambir, Mir Singh, Ram Phal and Dharambir giving them the benefit of doubt. The State has not filed any appeal. 4. Prosecution, to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Attar Singh (PW-1), Dr. Mahabir Singh (PW-2), Dr. Archana Gupta (PW-3), Dr. R.K. Chaudhary (PW-4), Madan Lal, Photographer (PW5), Satbir Singh, Patwari (PW-6), Maha Singh, Head Constable (PW7), Satbir Singh (PW-8), Anita (PW-9), Smt. Gunni (PW-10), Dr. A.L. Bajaj (PW-11), Hardawari Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW12), Dr. Anand Rai Barisal (PW-13), and Satbir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-14). 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that there is an unexplained delay of 17 hours in between the time, when the occurrence had taken place and the time the Special Report reached the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Rohtak. Occurrence had taken place on 25.8.1993 at 11.00 A.M. First Information Report was registered on 25.8.1993 at 11.00 P.M. On the statement of Anita (PW-9) and the Special Report reached the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Rohtak on 26.8.1993 at 4.30 A.M. Distance between the place of occurrence and Police Station, Meharn is 18 KMs. Distance between Police Station, Meham and the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Rohtak is 30 KMs. He has stated that during this time, the complainant-party brought complainant Anita (PW-9) from her in-laws house to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as "the MCH") and had her statement recorded before the Investigating Officer. Distance between the house of the in-laws of Anita in village Gugaheri and the MCH. Rohtak is about 20 KMs. Mange Ram, the third eye-witness, has not been brought into the witness-box. Distance between the house of the in-laws of Anita in village Gugaheri and the MCH. Rohtak is about 20 KMs. Mange Ram, the third eye-witness, has not been brought into the witness-box. There is a police post at the MCH, Rohtak. As per statements of the witnesses, they had reached the MCH, Rohtak at 1.05 P.M. The dead body of Azad Singh had also been brought at this time. Constable Darshan Singh, who had taken the Special Report, has not stated, as to the reason, as to why the delay has occurred. His affidavit is Exhibit PK. All he has stated in his affidavit is that he delivered the Special Report. 6. Complainant Anita (PW-9) has stated in her testimony that she received injuries with a gandasa. The injuries on her person, as per medical report, are superfluous. As per her statement, her father Mange Ram, witnessed the occurrence. Mange Ram was not brought into the witness-box. It is strange that Anita, who lived with her in-laws, is the one, who gave her statement to the police, for, registering of the First Information Report and not Mange Ram, her father. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that the injuries inflicted on her person, are with a blunt weapon, but in her cross- examination, she has stated that the injuries inflicted on her person, were cut injuries. 7. Smt. Gunni (PW-10), the wife of the deceased, who had suffered injuries, has stated in her affidavit dated 30.8.1994, Exhibit DW-1/A and her letter. Exhibit DW-3/1, that her father-in-law was putting pressure on her to name appellants Amir Lal and Krishan. In fact, her husband Azad Singh was killed by two persons with muffled faces. Letter, Exhibit DW-1/A has been written by her to her brother to help her to get out of this difficult situation. Learned counsel has stated that the defence is not denying the presence of Gunni (PW- 10) at the place of occurrence, but she has received injuries from two strangers, who had come with muffled faces and inflicted injuries on her husband Azad Singh. 8. From the place of occurrence, blood stained earth was taken by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has stated in his testimony that human blood was taken, but there is no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory pertaining to human blood. 8. From the place of occurrence, blood stained earth was taken by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has stated in his testimony that human blood was taken, but there is no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory pertaining to human blood. Question No. 27, put to appellant Krishan, is that the case property, was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban and his report is Exhibit PZ. 9. Learned counsel for the State has stated that there is no delay in lodging of the First Information Report. Exhibit PS/2. Azad Singh was murdered. Anita (PW-9) and Gunni (PW-10), the two eye-witnesses, were taken in injured condition, along with the dead body by Mange Ram, the father, of the deceased, to the MCH, Rohtak, which is at a distance of about 18 KMs. from the place of occurrence. Village Gugaheri, the place, where complainant Anitas in-laws resides, is at a distance of 20 KMs from the MCH, Mange Ram was looking after the two injured ladies and was grieved over the death of his son and thus, it was not possible for him to get Anita (PW-5) from her in-laws house in village Gugaheri. In fact, Anita (PW-9) was, with her father, when the occurrence had taken place. There was no need to implant Anita (PW-9) if she was not present at the place of occurrence. It was very easy for the prosecution to get Mange Ram into the witness-box, who was also an eye- witness. Affidavit and letter are forged documents. They do not have any relevance, when Gunni (PW-10) herself has come into the witness-box and on oath, has stated that she did not write any letter, Exhibit DW-3/1 or executed any affidavit. Exhibit DW-1/A. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent-State and perused the record with their assistance. 11. Occurrence had taken place on 25.8.1993 at 11.00 A.M. Distance between the police Station and village Morkha Kheri is 18 KMs. Statement of Anita (PW-9) was recorded on 25.8.1993 at 8.50 P.M. Formal FIR, Exhibit PS/2, was recorded on 25.8.1993 at 11.00 P.M. Special Report reached the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Rohtak on 26.8.1993 at 4.30 A.M. Distance between the Police Station Meham, where FIR was registered and the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Rohtak is 30 KMs. Statement of Anita (PW-9) was recorded on 25.8.1993 at 8.50 P.M. Formal FIR, Exhibit PS/2, was recorded on 25.8.1993 at 11.00 P.M. Special Report reached the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Rohtak on 26.8.1993 at 4.30 A.M. Distance between the Police Station Meham, where FIR was registered and the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Rohtak is 30 KMs. After the occurrence had taken place, the only person to look after deceased Azad Singh and the two injured eye witnesses Anita (PW-9) and Gunni (PW-10) was Mange Ram, the father of the deceased. 12. Dr. Mahabir Singh (PW-2) medico-legally examined Anita (PW-9) on 25.8.1993 at 1.55 P.M. He has stated in his testimony that probable duration of injuries was within 24 hours. The kind of weapon used was blunt. Injuries on the person of the complainant were simple. He sent a ruqa to the Incharge, Police Post MCH, Rohtak, vide Exhibit PD. Dr. Anand Rai Bansal (PW-13) has stated in his testimony that application, Exhibit PN, was submitted to him by the Investigating Officer. He gave his opinion, Exhibit PN/1, that patient Anita was fit to make a statement. This application is dated 25.8.1993. Second application, Exhibit PO, was submitted to him by the Investigating Officer. He gave his opinion, Exhibit PO/l, that patient Anita was fit to make a statement. It is only after that the doctor opined that Anita was fit to make a statement, the statement of injured Anita was recorded. From the statement of the doctor, it is clear that Anita (PW-9) was admitted in the MCH, Rohtak on 25.8.1993 at 1.55 P.M. Occurrence had taken place at 11.00 A.M. Distance between the house of the in-laws of Anita (PW-9) and the MCH, Rohtak, as stated by the counsels, is about 20 KMs. It could not have been possible for Mange Ram or any other person to have brought Anita from her in-laws house to make a statement before the police in such a short time. Mange Ram, in fact, at that time, was looking after his sons wife Gunni and his daughter Anita. He must have been in pain and grief over the death of his son Azad Singh. 13. Mange Ram, in fact, at that time, was looking after his sons wife Gunni and his daughter Anita. He must have been in pain and grief over the death of his son Azad Singh. 13. Constable Darshan Singh, in his affidavit, Exhibit PK, has stated that he delivered the Special Report to the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Rohtak on 26.8.1993 at 4.30 A.M. No delay can be attributed in the delivery of the special report. Distance between the Police Station Meham to the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Rohtak is 18 to 20 KMs. Delay has been adequately explained by the prosecution. 14. Regarding the statement of Anita, complainant (PW-9), one cannot overlook this fact that on 25.8.1993 at 1.55 P.M. Anita was medico-legally examined by Dr. Attar Singh (PW-1) in the MCH, Rohtak. Distance between the MCH, Rohtak and her in-laws house in village Gugaheri, as per the counsel for the parties, is about 20 KMs. Within this short span, she could not have been brought from her in-laws house. There was no need for the prosecution to introduce Anita (PW-9) as an eye-witness, as they already had two eye witnesses, i.e., injured Gunni (PW-10 ), wife of the deceased, and Mange Ram, the father of the deceased. It was natural for both these witnesses to be present in their fields, where the occurrence had occurred. Injuries on the person of Anita (PW-9), though being simple in nature, but the doctor has opined that they could have been caused by a blunt weapon. Anita (PW-9) has stated that she was given thrust blows with a gandasa on her chest and belly. This has been corroborated by the medical evidence. In her cross-examination, though she has stated that she suffered cut wounds, but she stated this inadvertently under the stress of cross-examination. Dr. Mahabir Singh (PW-2) examined Anita on 25.8.1993 at 1.55 P.M. after about three hours of the occurrence. He has explained the injuries on the person of Anita. 15. Much stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellant on affidavit, Exhibit DW-1/A and letter, Exhibit DW3/1. Letter, Exhibit DW3/1, has, allegedly, been written by Gunni to her brother, stating that she is being harassed by her in-laws that she should name the appellants Amar Lal and Krishan for the murder of her husband. 15. Much stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellant on affidavit, Exhibit DW-1/A and letter, Exhibit DW3/1. Letter, Exhibit DW3/1, has, allegedly, been written by Gunni to her brother, stating that she is being harassed by her in-laws that she should name the appellants Amar Lal and Krishan for the murder of her husband. In fact, the persons, who murdered her husband, had come with muffled faces, and she did not recognize them. In her affidavit, Exhibit DW-1/A, she has stated that when her husband Azad Singh was murdered, Anita, the sister of deceaseds husband and Mange Ram, the father of the deceased, were not present. They reached after the occurrence had taken place. The assailants, who came with muffled faces had, by then, fled. 16. Both these documents, the letter and the affidavit, seem to be procured documents. Gunni (PW-10) in her statement before the Court on oath, has stated that she has studied till 5th standard. She denied letter, Exhibit DW-3/1 being written by her and she also denied that she executed affidavit, Exhibit DW-1/A. Affidavit, Exhibit DW-1/A was not read over to her, as it has not been so recorded in the affidavit. She denied that on 30.8.1994, she went to Jhajjar and appeared before the Executive Magistrate. She has reiterated before the Court that the appellants inflicted injuries on her husband Azad Singh and her sister-in-law Anita. Her father in-law Mange Ram, saw the occurrence. The defence, by getting the letter and affidavit on record, have admitted the presence of Gunni (PW-10) at the place of occurrence. They have already admitted that she received injuries, but by two persons, who had come with muffled faces. Appellants in their statements, recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have stated that it was a blind murder. Anita (PW-9) was not present at the spot. Gunni (PW-10), was not ready to name them. Thereafter, Anita (PW-9), was made an eye-witness. They have been falsely implicated due to a grudge that the Panchayat made the complainant party to pay Rs. 14,000/- for the stealth of thrasher. An amount of Rs. 14,000/- imposed by the Panchayat on the complainant-party, was rightly imposed. Both Anita (PW-9) and Gunni (PW-10) are stamped witnesses. They suffered injuries at the time of occurrence. Gunnis presence is admitted by the defence. 17. 14,000/- for the stealth of thrasher. An amount of Rs. 14,000/- imposed by the Panchayat on the complainant-party, was rightly imposed. Both Anita (PW-9) and Gunni (PW-10) are stamped witnesses. They suffered injuries at the time of occurrence. Gunnis presence is admitted by the defence. 17. Letter Exhibit DW-3/1 and affidavit, Exhibit DW-1/A do not help the defence in any way, nor do they shatter the testimony of Gunni. It is difficult for us to take these documents into consideration, after the sworn testimony of Gunni (PW-10) in Court, denying these documents and reiterating the case that her husband was murdered by the appellants. 18. Blood stained earth was lifted from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban is Exhibit PZ. 19. In view of the reasons recorded above, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated 10.8.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. 20. Appeal is dismissed.