DEBIPRASAD SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13th July, 2000 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Nadia in Sessions Case No. 33 (2)2000 [sessions Trial No. IV (June) 2000] thereby convicting the accused appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in short, is that on the basis of an information lodged by one Shyamal Das (P. W. I) a case was registered with Chapra P. S. alleging commission of offence under section 304/34 IPC, wherein it was alleged that on 20. 6. 99 at about 6 p. m. when his cousin Biswanath was proceeding along the village path and when he arrived near the house of accused appellant no. 1 Tailakshya, he was attacked by both the appellants namely Tailakshya and his brother Kartick. Both the appellants being armed with 'chip Dao' came out from the house of appellant No. 1 and started hitting Biswanath on different parts of his body and after causing such injuries both the accused persons fled away. Villagers took the victim Biswanath to Saktinagar Hospital and on the way to hospital victim Biswanath succumbed to his injuries. ( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the case was initially registered and chargesheet was submitted under section 304/34 IPC, the ld. Trial Judge, after considering the materials on record, framed charge under section 302/34 IPC against both the appellants. ( 4 ) TO bring home the charge against the accused appellants prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. None was examined on behalf of the defence. ( 5 ) THE defence pleaded innocence and false implication. The specific defence, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination as also examination of accused under section 313 Cr. PC, was that Biswanath, since deceased, had enemies in the locality as he was involved in several cases. ( 6 ) P. W. I is the informant and is the cousin of deceased Biswanath. He corroborated his statement made in the FIR. At the time of incident he was at his house and after hearing the hue and cry he rushed to the place of occurrence and found the accused appellants stabbing Biswanath with 'chip Dao'. When he reached the place of occurrence he found the victim Biswanath still alive. He corroborated his statement made in the FIR. At the time of incident he was at his house and after hearing the hue and cry he rushed to the place of occurrence and found the accused appellants stabbing Biswanath with 'chip Dao'. When he reached the place of occurrence he found the victim Biswanath still alive. He found that after causing such injuries the accused persons fled away and he along with Sushil (P. W. 5), Kalo (P. W. 3), Parbati (P. W. 6), Bani (P. W. 7) and buchi (P. W. 12 - a child witness aged about 9 years) was present by the side of injured Biswanath. Then P. W. 5, P. W. 6 and P. W. 7 took the victim Biswanath towards the ghat for sending him to hospital. On the following morning this witness came to learn that Biswanath died in the hospital. P. W. 1 thereafter went to Gantra R. O. P. and informed about the said incident. As per his dictation it was recorded by P. W. 2 Abimanyu Biswas. ( 7 ) P. W. 2 is the scribe of the FIR and he deposed that he came to know from p. W. 1 that accused Tailakshya and Kartick and murdered Biswanath. ( 8 ) P. W. 3 Kalipada Das alias Kalo, who also claimed himself to be an eyewitness to the occurrence, stated in his evidence that on the date of incident he was accompanying Biswanath at about 6 p. m. , when they were returning from ghoshpara and were proceeding towards the house of Biswanath, accused kartick had assaulted Biswanath with 'chip Dao' on the back side of the victim and thereafter Tailakshya assaulted Biswanath with 'chip Dao'. He further deposed that both the accused persons had given 10/12 strokes with their 'daos' on Biswanath. P. W. I and many others assembled at the place of occurrence and injured Biswanath was taken to hospital. This witness also stated that he had been to the house of Biswanath (deceased) along with his wife Parbati and his son on the occasion of Jamaisasthi'. ( 9 ) P. WS. 4 and 5 came to know from P. W. 3 Kalo that accused Tailakshya and Kartick had killed Biswanath. ( 10 ) P. W. 6 Parbati, wife of P. W. 3 Kalo Das is another eye-witness to the occurrence. ( 9 ) P. WS. 4 and 5 came to know from P. W. 3 Kalo that accused Tailakshya and Kartick had killed Biswanath. ( 10 ) P. W. 6 Parbati, wife of P. W. 3 Kalo Das is another eye-witness to the occurrence. She deposed that on the occasion of Jamaisasthi she came to village maidanpur with her husband (P. W. 3) and her son. On the date of incident her husband and the victim Biswanath went to a nearby para (locality) after taking lunch. She went to a nearby sweetmeat shop for bringing sweet. At that time she heard the shout of her husband (P. W. 3), rushed to the place of occurrence and found that two accused persons were assaulting her brother Biswanath with 'kirich'. She started shouting and the villagers rushed to the P. O. She narrated the incident to villagers and her brother Biswanath was taken to the hospital by P. W. 5 and others by a rickshaw. ( 11 ) P. W. 7 Bani Das is the wife of the deceased and she stated that at the time of incident she was at her house and after hearing hue and cry from a nearby locality, namely Ghoshpara, she rushed to the spot and found that her husband sustained severe cut injuries on different parts of his body. She also came to know from Kalo Das P. W. 3 that accused Tailakshya and Kartick assaulted her husband with Chip Dao' and fled away. Villagers assembled at the place of occurrence and her husband was taken to hospital by a rickshaw van. On the way they hired a taxi at Bhimpur Bazar and then took her husband to hospital. On the way to hospital her husband succumbed to his injuries. ( 12 ) P. W. 8 is the doctor who held post-mortem over the deadbody of biswanath and he found as many as 10 injuries, all sharp-cut injuries, on the body of the victim. He opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage. The said injuries, according to him, were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further opined that the said injuries might be caused by sharp-cutting weapon like chip Dao'. The injuries found by P. W. 8 were as follows:"1. He opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage. The said injuries, according to him, were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further opined that the said injuries might be caused by sharp-cutting weapon like chip Dao'. The injuries found by P. W. 8 were as follows:"1. A sharp-cut injury over left side of face from lateral angle of left eye upto left parietal region oblique in direction. Size 8" x 1" into parietal bone cut. 2. A horizontal sharp-cut injury over left ear at middle part. Size 4" x 1" x bone deep. 3. A sharp-cut injury over back of neck from lateral border of right sterno mastoid muscle upto cervical vertica. Size 5" x 3" x cervical bone cut. 4. A sharp-cut injury over right shoulder joint. Size 4" x 1" x muscle deep. 5. A sharp-cut injury over medial side of left elbow joint. Size 1" x " x muscle deep. 6. A sharp-cut injury over 2" above left wrist joint at medial side. Size 1" x " x muscle deep. 7. A sharp-cut injury over base of left index finger, extended upto middle of the finger at back side. Size 3" x " x bone deep. 8. A sharp-cut injury over back of left scapula 2" below the left shoulder joint. Size 3" x 1" x bone deep oblique in direction. 9. A sharp-cut injury at left lateral side of leg. Size 2" x W x muscle deep. 10. Another sharp-cut injury over upper part of back of left arm oblique in direction. Size 4" x 2" x bone deep. Brain matter expelled out from the wound Nos. 1 and 2. P. Ws. 9,10, 11 and 13 are formal witnesses. " ( 13 ) P. W. 12 is a child witness aged about 9 years. She deposed that she knew Biswanath (deceased), who had three children. She stated that deceased biswanath made a joke with her by asking as to whether she would agree to marry him. She further deposed that Tailakshya and Kartick assaulted biswanath with 'chip Dao'. She shouted at that time and fled away out of fear and narrated the incident to her mother. ( 14 ) P. W. 14 is the Investigating Officer of the case, who, on completion of investigation, submitted chargesheet in the case. ( 15 ) MR. She further deposed that Tailakshya and Kartick assaulted biswanath with 'chip Dao'. She shouted at that time and fled away out of fear and narrated the incident to her mother. ( 14 ) P. W. 14 is the Investigating Officer of the case, who, on completion of investigation, submitted chargesheet in the case. ( 15 ) MR. Subir Ganguly, ld. Advocate of the appellants submits that there was an unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR and since such delay has not been explained by the prosecution, it throws a shadow of suspicion on the prosecution case. FIR in the present case was lodged about 17 hours after the incident and this was done, according to the ld. Advocate of the appellant, to afford enough scope for manipulating evidence. But such contention cannot be accepted by us. In the present case the victim Biswanath sustained as many as 10 sharp-cut injuries and his condition was serious. Therefore, the first priority of his relatives was to provide immediate medical aid so that the life of the victim could be saved. Injured Biswanath was taken to hospital which was far away from the place of occurrence. The victim died on the way to hospital. The persons who accompanied him to hospital could not return to their village on that night and they came back to their village on the following morning and fir was lodged at 11. 15 hours. The fact of the state of mental agony of the relations or associates of the deceased victim apparently under the shock of the occurrence has always to be taken into consideration. In the present case considering the manner in which the incident took place, the manner in which the victim was taken to hospital the distance of hospital from the place of occurrence and the fact that the accompanying persons could not return to their village on the same night, we are of the view that such a delay is not at all unreasonable and it does not affect the prosecution case in any way. Sequence of events shows that there was no unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR. ( 16 ) MR. Ganguly next challenges the legality of the evidence of P. W. 12 ashalata Das alias Buchi, who is a child witness aged about 9 years and is an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is submitted by Mr. Sequence of events shows that there was no unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR. ( 16 ) MR. Ganguly next challenges the legality of the evidence of P. W. 12 ashalata Das alias Buchi, who is a child witness aged about 9 years and is an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is submitted by Mr. Ganguly that P. W. 12 was not examined by the Investigating Officer and she was neither a chargesheeted witness nor a Court witness. The Trial Judge allowed the prosecution to examine such a witness not in compliance with the provision of section 311 Cr. PC and as such the ld. Trial Judge should have excluded the evidence of P. W. 12 from consideration. But we are unable to accept such contention. From the order dated 16. 6. 2000 passed by the ld. Trial Judge, it becomes clear that there was a petition filed on behalf of the prosecution praying for permission to examine the minor girl Buchi. The ld. Trial Judge allowed such prayer of the prosecution for the ends of justice. We find that the name of Buchi appeared in the inquest report. From a perusal of the inquest report, it appears that on preliminary investigation it was ascertained by the officer holding inquest that on 20. 6. 99 at about 6 p. m. when Biswanath was going towards the shop and when he arrived near the house of Tailakshya, a little girl named Buchi came out from a house situated by the side of the pathway and asked him 'uncle where are you going'? Deceased Biswanath started to talk with the child and at that time both the accused persons stabbed Biswanath with 'ramdao' in their hands. It is really surprising to note that such a vital witness, namely Buchi Das, may be she was a child witness, was not examined by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter when the name of Buchi transpired in the evidence of P. W. 1, a prayer was made by the prosecution for examination of the said witness, namely Buchi which was allowed by the ld. Trial Judge for the ends of justice. ( 17 ) MR. Ganguly, ld. Advocate relies upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2004 C Cr. LR page 696. Trial Judge for the ends of justice. ( 17 ) MR. Ganguly, ld. Advocate relies upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2004 C Cr. LR page 696. From a perusal of the said judgment, it appears that in the said case after all the chargesheeted witnesses were examined and cross-examined, prosecution filed a petition for examination of four witnesses not named in the chargesheet. The Trial Judge allowed such petition and the order of the Trial Judge was challenged in revision. The ld. Single Judge allowed the revisional application and set aside the impugned order as there was nothing to show before this Court that the names of those four witnesses transpired in the evidence of witnesses already examined. In our considered view, the said judgment has got no manner of application in the present case, where the ld. Trial Judge on being satisfied on the materials, i. e. exhibit 2/1 (inquest report)and the evidence of P. W. 1, where also the name of Buchi appeared, allowed the prayer of the prosecution to examine the said child witness Buchi. Apart from that the order dated 16. 6. 2000, by which the ld. Trial Judge allowed the prayer of the prosecution to examine Buchi, was never challenged by defence in any higher Court. Considering all these aspects, we are of the view that the argument advanced by the ld. Advocate of the appellants that the evidence of P. W. 12 buchi is not acceptable as she was not a chargesheeted witness, is not tenable. ( 18 ) IT is in the evidence of P. W. 12 that she saw the incident of assault upon the victim Biswanath by the two appellants with 'chip Dao' in their hands. After going through the evidence of P. W. 12, we do not find any reason to disbelieve such child witness. Nothing was elicited from cross-examination of the said witness to disbelieve her testimony. ( 19 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution P. Ws. 1, 3, 6 and 12 are the eye-witnesses, who claimed to have seen the incident of assault on Biswanath by both the appellants with 'chip Dao' in their hands. It is the contention of the ld. Advocate of the appellants that the presence of P. Ws. 3 and 6 at the place of occurrence is very doubtful. 1, 3, 6 and 12 are the eye-witnesses, who claimed to have seen the incident of assault on Biswanath by both the appellants with 'chip Dao' in their hands. It is the contention of the ld. Advocate of the appellants that the presence of P. Ws. 3 and 6 at the place of occurrence is very doubtful. Although they stated in their evidence that they came to village maidanpur in the house of Biswanath (deceased) on the occasion of'jamaisasthi', they never stated so before the Investigating Officer of the case in their statements under section 161 Cr. PC. It is further submitted by the ld. Advocate that in the FIR as also in the inquest report nothing was mentioned about the presence of P. Ws. 3 and 6 at the place of occurrence, nor it was mentioned that at the time of alleged incident of assault P. W. 3 was accompanying victim biswanath. P. W. 12 Buchi also did not say anything in her evidence regarding presence of P. W. 3 at the time of incident of assault. We find sufficient merit in the submission of the ld. Advocate of the appellant in so far as it relates to the presence of P. W. 3 at the place of occurrence and accordingly we are also of the view that the presence of P. W. 3 at the place of occurrence at the time of incident is not believable and his evidence in that regard is not free from doubt. The ld. Advocate also pointed out some contradictions in the evidence of P. W. 6 Parbati with reference to her earlier statement recorded by police under section 161 cr. PC. Although we find some contradictions in her evidence, but those, in our considered view, do not affect the vital aspect of her evidence. ( 20 ) CONSIDERING the evidence on record, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of eye-witnesses, namely P. W. 1, 6 and 12 which is substantially corroborated by the other witnesses including the medical evidence of P. W. 8. If the evidence of the said eye-witnesses coupled with the medical evidence of P. W. 8 are relied upon, it can safely be said that the said two accused persons are jointly liable for causing death of victim Biswanath. If the evidence of the said eye-witnesses coupled with the medical evidence of P. W. 8 are relied upon, it can safely be said that the said two accused persons are jointly liable for causing death of victim Biswanath. ( 21 ) P. W. 8, the doctor who held post-mortem over the deadbody of deceased biswanath, found as many as 10 sharp-cut injuries on the different parts of the body. It is also found that most of the injuries were on the vital parts of the body. Death of the victim was, according to P. W. 8, due to shock and haemorrhage and injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature and those were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. P. W. 8 further opined that such injuries might have been caused by sharp-cutting weapon like Chip Dao'. ( 22 ) THE evidence of the eye-witnesses, whose presence was well-established, was fully corroborated by medical evidence. In so far as certain inconsistencies or minor contradictions in the narration or embellishments of the incident are concerned, reference may be made to the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Randhir Basu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 2000 SC 908 , "some inconsistencies of a minor nature in the evidence of the witness can be regarded as natural giving more details while disposing before the Court are not to be treated as improvements of such a nature as would create any doubt regarding the trustworthiness of a witness". ( 23 ) IN so far as the nature of the offence committed by the accused i. e. whether it falls under section 302 IPC or any other category of lesser degree, is concerned, we take into consideration certain facts which come out from the evidence on record, namely 1) both the accused appellants were armed with deadly sharpcut weapons like 'chip Dao 2) both the appellants attacked the victim, who was completely unarmed, and inflicted as many as 10 sharp-cut injuries; 3)such attack was made without any sudden or grave provocation; 4) both the appellants attacked the victim and started hitting with the weapon of assault (Chip Dao) when the victim was talking with P. W. 12, a minor girl aged about 9 years; 5) the number of injuries and the manner in which such injuries were inflicted clearly indicates the brutality of the murder. Considering all these aspects, we are of the view that the offence falls clearly in the category of homicidal death amounting to murder punishable under section 302 IPC. ( 24 ) THE ld, Advocate appearing for the respondent/state in support of the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, submits that the argument advanced by the ld. Advocate of the appellant that there was an unreasonable and unexplained delay in loding the FIR, is not at all tenable. The sequence of events immediately after the incident i. e. anxiety of the relatives to provide the injured with immediate medical aid. taking the injured to the hospital, which was far away from the place of occurrence, from where they could not return to their village on the same night, suggests that the delay of about 17 hours in lodging the FIR is not at all unreasonable. Ld. advocate further submits that even if the evidence of P. W. 3 is excluded as not acceptable, there are evidence of other eye-witnesses coupled with the corroborating medical evidence of P. W. 8 which is sufficient for conviction. The number of injuries, 10 sharp-cut injuries, found by P. W. 8, clearly indicates the brutality of the murder. The manner in which the injuries were inflicted by both the appellants and the number of injuries, clearly suggest that the offence falls clearly in the category of homicidal death amounting to murder punishable under section 302 IPC. and not in any other category of lesser degree. The manner in which the injuries were inflicted by both the appellants and the number of injuries, clearly suggest that the offence falls clearly in the category of homicidal death amounting to murder punishable under section 302 IPC. and not in any other category of lesser degree. ( 25 ) AFTER reappreciating the evidence on record, we entirely agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court. We do not find any illegality in the judgment of the Court below and consequently we affirm the same. The appeal accordingly fails and the same is dismissed. ( 26 ) THE accused appellants, who are on bail, are directed to surrender before the Court below immediately for serving out the sentence. Their bail bonds are cancelled. The Court below is also directed to take all coercive steps in accordance with law for apprehension of the accused appellants for serving out the sentence. Appeal dismissed.