Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 16.11.1996 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, whereby he acquitted Bharat Bhushan @ Bharti son of Sardara and convicted Jarnail Singh son of Banarsi Dass under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The imprisonment already undergone by the appellant as an undertrial was ordered to set off towards the sentence awarded to him. 2. State has filed appeal No. 400-DB-A of 1997 against the acquittal of Bharat Bhushan @ Bharti by the trial Court. As both these appeal Nos. 62-DB of 1997 and 400-DB-A of 1997 arise out of the same judgment dated 16.11.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, we will be disposing of both the appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 62-DB of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No. 400-DB-A of 1997 in this order. 3. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Rohtash (PW- 12), aged 21, made before Amar Nath, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-13) on 6.9.1994 at 4.40 P.M. He stated before Amar Nath, Assistant Sub Inspector that his admission fee, as a private candidate, for appearing in Matriculation Examination had to be deposited. His younger brother, Dharminder, was a student of 8th Class in Mandebri School. Appellant Jarnail Singh son of Banarsi Dass also studied in the same school. There was a dispute between appellant Jarnail Singh and his (complainants) brother over the exchange of a pen. On 6.9.1994 in the morning, Rohtash (complainant) rebuked and slapped Jarnail Singh that he was quarrelling with his brother over the pen. On the same day i.e. 6.9.1994 at about 12.30 P.M., complainants Buas son (fathers sisters son) Vijay Kumar son of Rulia Ram had come to the house of the complainant in village Peer Majra. Complainant was also present in his house. Vijay Kumar had come to cut the fodder (Chari) crop. Complainant along with Vijay Kumar on their respective cycles, went towards village Ratauli. At about 1.30 P.M. when they had reached near village Phoosgarh, Bharat Bhushan @ Bharti came from behind and asked them to stop. Complainant and Vijay Kumar god down from their bicycles. Vijay Kumar had come to cut the fodder (Chari) crop. Complainant along with Vijay Kumar on their respective cycles, went towards village Ratauli. At about 1.30 P.M. when they had reached near village Phoosgarh, Bharat Bhushan @ Bharti came from behind and asked them to stop. Complainant and Vijay Kumar god down from their bicycles. Appellant Jarnail Singh son of Banarsi Dass was along with Bharti. Bharti caught hold of the arm of the complainant and asked him as to why he (complainant) had slapped appellant Jarnail Singh. Both the parties started abusing and wrestling with each other. Vijay Kumar, the brother of the complainant, tried to separate them, but Jarnail Singh, in the meantime, took out a knife and gave a blow, which hit in the abdomen of Vijay Kumar. He gave another blow of the knife which hit the right eye of Vijay Kumar. Jarnail Singh then came towards the complainant to inflict injuries on him, but the complainant ran away. More injuries were inflicted by Bharti and appellant Jarnail Singh to Vijay Kumar, while he was lying on the ground. Rohtash (Complainant) after running a short distance, met his brother Naresh Kumar (PW-9) and narrated the incident to him. Naresh Kumar and some other boys then ran towards the place of occurrence and saw Vijay Kumar lying on the ground. In the meanwhile, Bharti and Jarnail Singh had run away. Complainant went to village Ratauli and informed Rulia Ram, his Phupha (PW-2). Naresh Kumar (PW-9) took Vijay Kumar to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar for treatment. Complainant along with Rulia Ram (PW-2) reached Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, but Vijay Kumar already passed away. 4. Ruqa, Exhibit PC, along with the statement of complainant was sent to Police Station Farakpur, where a formal FIR, Exhibit PR, was recorded. 5. Prosecution, to prove its case, brought into the witness box Narinder Kumar (PW-1), Rulia Ram (PW-2), Rishi Kumar (PW-3), Abhey Raj (PW-4), Dr. Prem Chand (PW-5), Nar Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-6), Jagdish Ram, Sub Inspector (PW-7), Jagdish Chander (PW-8), Naresh Kumar (PW-9), Dr. N.N. Kalia (PW-10), Om Parkash (PW-11), Rohtash (PW-12) and Amar Nath, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW- 13). 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that there is an unexplained delay in lodging of the First Information Report, Exhibit PR. Prem Chand (PW-5), Nar Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-6), Jagdish Ram, Sub Inspector (PW-7), Jagdish Chander (PW-8), Naresh Kumar (PW-9), Dr. N.N. Kalia (PW-10), Om Parkash (PW-11), Rohtash (PW-12) and Amar Nath, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW- 13). 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that there is an unexplained delay in lodging of the First Information Report, Exhibit PR. Occurrence had taken place on 6.9.1994 at 1.30 P.M. Distance between village Phoosgarh and Police Station, Farakpur is 3 KMs. As per the First Information Report, Exhibit PR, the statement of Rohtash (PW-12) was recorded at 4.40 P.M. on 6.9.1994. For three hours, consultations and confabulations were taking place, as to who to falsely implicate. First Information Report was recorded on 6.9.1994 at 5.20 P.M. Special Report was sent to the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Yamuna Nagar on 6.9.1994 at 7.20 P.M. Due to party faction in the village, appellant was falsely implicated. It is actually a case of blind murder. Rulia Ram (PW-2) in his statement before the Court, has not stated anything that he was informed by Rohtash (PW-12) about the occurrence. 7. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Rohtash (PW-12) did not witness the occurrence. Though it has been alleged by the prosecution that appellant Jarnail Singh attacked Rohtash, but it is strange that no injury was inflicted on Rohtash inspite of he having been attacked. Further, the prosecution witnesses have stated that grappling had taken place between Rohtash and the appellant, but no torn shirt or pant has been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer to prove that grappling had taken place. Motive in this case is not believable. As per the version of the prosecution, Dharminder, the brother of the complainant, had quarrelled with appellant Jarnail Singh over the ownership of a pen. It was on 6.9.1994 at 7.30 A.M. in the morning that complainant slapped Jarnail Singh, for a quarrel, which had taken place between Dharminder and Jarnail Singh two days earlier to the occurrence, over the ownership of a pen. 8. Jagdish Ram, Sub-Inspector, the Investigating Officer (PW-7), did not pick up any blood from the place of occurrence nor from the three wheeler/scooter on which deceased Vijay Kumar was taken to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. 8. Jagdish Ram, Sub-Inspector, the Investigating Officer (PW-7), did not pick up any blood from the place of occurrence nor from the three wheeler/scooter on which deceased Vijay Kumar was taken to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. Naresh Kumar (PW-9) has stated in his testimony that a lot of blood was oozing out of the head of the deceased. Recovery of the knife, Ex. P-1, is suspect. Recovery memo, Ex. PG, has been falsely prepared. The knife, Ex. P-1, has been recovered from a paddy field, full of water, Jagdish Ram, the Investigating Officer (PW-7) and Jagdish Chander (PW-8), the recovery witnesses, have stated in their testimony before the Court that there was blood on the knife. Stains of blood could not have remained on the knife, as it was recovered from a paddy field after two days, where there was water. Learned counsel has lastly placed reliance on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ramesh Vithalrao Thakre and another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1453, wherein in that case the deceased was inflicted a single blow of knife in the abdomen by the accused, while she was intervening to save her brother being attacked by the accused. It was further held that the accused can be clothed with knowledge and not intention that the injury was likely to cause death. Offence would fall under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, appellant Jarnail Singh wanted to inflict injuries on the person of Rohtash (PW-12). Vijay Kumar, as per the version of the prosecution, had intervened to stop the quarrel and to separate appellant Jarnail Singh and Rohtash (PW-12). Appellant did not have any intention to inflict injuries on the person of Vijay Kumar. Injuries on the person of deceased Vijay Kumar were accidental. At the most, appellant can be convicted under Section 304 Part II. 9. Learned counsel for the State has stated that there is no delay in lodging of the First Information Report. Rohtash (PW-12) who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, did not have any grudge to falsely implicate the appellant. At the most, appellant can be convicted under Section 304 Part II. 9. Learned counsel for the State has stated that there is no delay in lodging of the First Information Report. Rohtash (PW-12) who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, did not have any grudge to falsely implicate the appellant. Appellant Jarnail Singh, who was slapped on the morning of 6.9.1994 at 7.30 A.M. by Rohtash (PW-12) for fighting with his brother Dharminder, had intentionally and after making up his mind to inflict injuries on Rohtash, stopped him, when he was going along with Vijay Kumar deceased. Rohtash (PW- 12) and Dharminder were students. Dharminder and Jarnail Singh fought over a pen, which was not liked by Rohtash, who slapped appellant Jarnail Singh. Appellant kept this in his mind and wanted to take revenge on Rohtash. 10. Blood could not have been picked up from the place of occurrence for the reason that the occurrence had taken place in the day time. By the time, the Investigating Officer had reached the place of occurrence, a lot of traffic had passed over the place, where the blood was lying. Though deceased Vijay Kumar was taken on a three-wheeler, but the complainant party did not have any identification of the three-wheeler. 11. Knife was recovered on the disclosure statement made by the accused. Knife was not recovered from the water in the fields, but from the daul of the fields. This portion of the land is usually dry. Offence does not fall under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. It was a pre-meditated murder. If the occurrence had taken place at 7.30 A.M. when Rohtash (PW-12) had slapped the appellant, then a case of the appellant being sentenced under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code could have been made out. Deceased Vijay Kumar was attacked after six hours, after the altercation had taken place between Rohtash and appellant Jarnail Singh. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State and perused the records with their assistance. 13. Prompt recording of the First Information Report goes a long way in proving a criminal case. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 6.9.1994 at 1.30 P.M. Thereafter, deceased Vijay Kumar, after being taken on a three- wheeler was brought to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. 13. Prompt recording of the First Information Report goes a long way in proving a criminal case. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 6.9.1994 at 1.30 P.M. Thereafter, deceased Vijay Kumar, after being taken on a three- wheeler was brought to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. Distance between village Phoosgarh and Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar and police station Farakpur is about 4 KMs. The statement of Rohtash (PW-12) was recorded on 6.9.1994 at 4.40 P.M. Formal FIR came into existence at 5.20 P.M. Ruqa, Exhibit PC, was sent by Dr. Prem Chand (PW-5) on 6.9.1994 at 2.00 P.M. to police post Yamuna Nagar. After the ruqa, Exhibit PC, had been received by the police post Yamuna Nagar, the police swung into action. Amar Nath, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-13) came to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar and recorded the statement of Rohtash, the complainant. Special Report reached the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Jagadhri on 6.9.1994 at 7.20 P.M. Rohtash (PW-12) in his statement recorded before the Court, has stated that after he informed Naresh Kumar (PW-9) of the occurrence, he went to village Ratauli to give information of the occurrence to his Phupha Rulia Ram (PW-2), the father of the deceased. This statement of Rohtash is a truthful version, as the first thing what any individual would do, who has seen the occurrence, is to inform the guardian/close relative of the injured. Rulia Ram (PW-2) was the father of the deceased. Rohtash going to inform his Phupha in village Ratauli, had taken some time. He along with Rulia Ram (PW-2) then reached Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. It was thereafter that the statement of Rohtash (PW-12) was recorded. Recording of the First Information Report, Exhibit PR is prompt. There is no delay. 14. The motive for commission of the offence is believable. Appellant and complainant-party are all school going students. Two days earlier to the occurrence, Dharminder, the brother of Rohtash (PW-12), had quarrelled with appellant Jarnail Singh over a pen. On the morning of 6.9.1994 at 7.30 A.M. Rohtash had slapped appellant Jarnail Singh for which he took offence. 15. Rohtash (PW-12) is a natural witness to the occurrence. He was going to the field along with Vijay Kumar to cut chari crop. Both Vijay Kumar deceased and Rohtash (PW-12) are closely related to each other as deceased Vijay Kumar was his Phuphas (fathers sisters husband) son. 15. Rohtash (PW-12) is a natural witness to the occurrence. He was going to the field along with Vijay Kumar to cut chari crop. Both Vijay Kumar deceased and Rohtash (PW-12) are closely related to each other as deceased Vijay Kumar was his Phuphas (fathers sisters husband) son. School going children do quarrel over a pen or pencil. There was a grudge in the mind of the appellant to attack Rohtash, as he had been slapped in the morning by Rohtash. 16. Argument put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant that knife has been implanted on the appellant does not cut much ice. In the disclosure statement, appellant has stated that he had hidden the knife, the weapon of offence, in the daul of a paddy field. Jagdish Chander (PW-18) is the recovery witness. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory states that the knife was stained with blood. The knife was hidden in the daul where usually paddy water does not reach. Though it was recovered after two days, but still, there were marks of blood on the knife. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that at the most, the offence made out against the appellant is not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant did not have any intention to inflict injuries on Vijay Kumar, but as per the version of the prosecution, he wanted to inflict injuries on Rohtash (PW-12), who had insulted him in the morning. Vijay Kumar was only an intervenor, who was hit accidentally when appellant, who was in a fit of rage at that time, had, infact, wanted to injure Rohtash. 18. In Ramesh Vithalrao Thakres case (supra), the facts of the case were that injury was inflicted on Rekha, who had intervened to save her brother Ashok from being assaulted. The primary target of Ramesh was Ashok, the brother of Rekha. The Honble Apex Court has held in para No. 7 of its judgment, which is reproduced as under :- "There is no denying the fact that one single injury was caused to the deceased by Ramesh when Rekha intervened to save her brother Ashok being assaulted. The primary target of Ramesh was Ashok, who got saved when Rekha received the injury on her chest. The primary target of Ramesh was Ashok, who got saved when Rekha received the injury on her chest. After causing the single injury to Rekha, it is the prosecution case itself, that Ramesh did not cause any other injury to Rekha nor even to Ashok, PW-1. From the evidence on the record and the established circumstances, it is not possible to say with certainty that the appellant intended to cause the death of Rekha. Even though the principle contained in Section 301 IPC would be applicable to the case, it appears to us that the appellant can only be clothed with the knowledge that the injury which he was causing was likely to cause the death of Rekha but without any intention to cause her death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The offence, under the circumstances, would be one which would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC." 19. The case of appellant Jarnail Singh is fully covered by the judgment (supra) and would fall within Section 304 Part II of the IPC. Appellant did not have any intention of causing injuries to Vijay Kumar deceased, as his target was Rohtash (PW-12). It has come in evidence that Vijay Kumar deceased intervened to stop the quarrel between appellant Jarnail Singh and Rohtash (PW-12) and in the process received a knife blow in the abdomen. Injury Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are abrasions, which could be caused as a result of fall on a hard surface as per opinion of Dr. Prem Chand (PW-5). 20. With the above observations and discussion, conviction of appellant Jarnail Singh is modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 21. With the above modification in conviction and sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 62-DB of 1997 is dismissed. Appellant, if on bail, is directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, to serve the remaining part of his sentence. 22. Acquittal of Bharat Bhushan @ Bharti respondent by the trial Court is fully justified. Role attributed to Bharti-respondent is that he caught hold of Rohtash (PW-12) by his arms. Appellant, if on bail, is directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, to serve the remaining part of his sentence. 22. Acquittal of Bharat Bhushan @ Bharti respondent by the trial Court is fully justified. Role attributed to Bharti-respondent is that he caught hold of Rohtash (PW-12) by his arms. The trial Court acquitted Bharat Bhushan @ Bbarti by giving him the benefit of doubt. Reasons recorded by the trial Court in para No. 11 of its judgment, are well founded and there is no scope to interfere in the findings. Criminal Appeal No. 400-DB-A of 1997 is dismissed and findings of acquittal of Bharat Bhushan alias Bharti are hereby affirmed.