Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 9/10.12.1996 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby he convicted appellants Kesha Ram, Balraj, Suresh Kumar, Chhota Ram and Wazir Singh under Sections 302, 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Wazir Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellants Kesha Ram, Balraj, Suresh Kumar and Chhota Ram were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. All the sentences awarded to the appellants by the trial Court were to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is unfolded by the statement of Ram Niwas (PW-6) given to Head Constable Parma Nand (PW-10) at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the PGI") at 10.30 p.m. on 26.7.1995. On the basis of this statement, formal FIR, Ex. PA, was recorded on 27.7.1995 at 4.15 a.m. Special Report was sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate on 27.7.1995 at 7.30 p.m. Ram Niwas, in his statement before Head Constable Parma Nand, has stated that he is a resident of village Khurana. His father Mohan Ram has three brothers. Eldest is Moman Ram, younger to him is Kesha Ram; Lachhman Dass is younger to Kesha Ram and Chhota Ram is the youngest. They all owned a Panjawa jointly towards the South East of the village. The Panjawa has been partitioned and they all have built up their respective houses. Chhota Ram and Kesha Ram had a doubt that complainants father Moman Ram had excess land. Moman Ram, several times, asked Kesha Ram and Chhota Ram that they could have the Panjawa demarcated afresh. Kesha Ram and Chhota Ram nourished a grudge with this regard. On 26.7.1995 at about 7.00 A.M., complainants father Moman Ram and the complainant himself, were sitting in front of their Baithak constructed on the Panjawa. Moman Ram, several times, asked Kesha Ram and Chhota Ram that they could have the Panjawa demarcated afresh. Kesha Ram and Chhota Ram nourished a grudge with this regard. On 26.7.1995 at about 7.00 A.M., complainants father Moman Ram and the complainant himself, were sitting in front of their Baithak constructed on the Panjawa. Anita, aged about 10 years, daughter of Chhota Ram, came there carrying a Talsa (a flat iron pot). The Tasla contained rubbish. Complainant asked Anita not to throw rubbish on the piece of land, where she was throwing it, as it belonged to the complainant. She stopped from doing so. Chhota Ram and his son Wazir Singh, who were present nearby, heard the complaint stopping Anita. Both got angry and gave the complainant slaps and fist blows. Complaint shouted for help. Complainants brother Balwant Singh came there. Wazir Singh and Chhota Ram then ran towards their own house and came back armed with a lathi and gandasi respective. Kesha Ram, Balraj and Suresh Kumar also came to the spot. On arrival, Wazir Singh gave a gandasi blow from its reverse side hitting the right side of the head of Balwant Singh. Suresh Kumar then gave a lathi blow on the back of Balwant Singh. Balraj and Kesha Ram gave blows with their respective lathis to Balwant Singh. The lathi blow given by Kesha Ram hit on the left and right arms of Balwant Singh. On hearing shouts, a number of people came there. On seeing the villagers coming, Wazir Singh, Balraj, Kesha Ram, Suresh Kumar and Chhota Ram ran away. Complainants father Moman Ram along with the complainant removed Balwant Singh to Civil Hospital, Kaithal in a van. Since the condition of Balwant Singh was serious, the doctor referred him to PGI, Chandigarh. 3. Complainant and the appellants are closely related to each other. The pedigree-table of the parties is as under :- 4. Datu Ram has thre sons, namely, Moman Ram, Kesha Ram and Chhota Ram. Moman Ram had two sons, namely, Ram Niwas and Balwant Singh (deceased). Kesha Ram has two sons Balraj and Suresh Kumar. Chhota Ram has one son, namely, Wazir Singh. Ram Niwas is the complainant and Balwant Singh is the deceased. 5. Prosecution, to prove its case, brought into the witness box Phool Kumar (PW-1), Constable Ram Niwas (PW-2), Dr. Jasmer Singh (PW-3), Dr. Dalbir Singh (PW-4), Dr. Kesha Ram has two sons Balraj and Suresh Kumar. Chhota Ram has one son, namely, Wazir Singh. Ram Niwas is the complainant and Balwant Singh is the deceased. 5. Prosecution, to prove its case, brought into the witness box Phool Kumar (PW-1), Constable Ram Niwas (PW-2), Dr. Jasmer Singh (PW-3), Dr. Dalbir Singh (PW-4), Dr. J.V.B. Parshad (PW-5), Ram Niwas, complainant (PW-6), Moman Ram (PW-7), Roshan Lal (PW-8), Assistant Sub-Inspector Singh (PW-9) and Head Constable Parma Nand (PW-10). Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that there is an unexplained delay in recording of the First Information Report. Occurrence had taken place on 26.7.1995 at 7.00 a.m. at village Khurana, Police Station Sadar Kaithal. Distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station Sadar, Kaithal is 6 KMs. Though, as per the prosecution case, statement of Ram Niwas (PW-6) was recorded at 10.30 a.m. at PGI, Chandigarh on 26.7.1995, formal First Information Report came into existence on 27.7.1995 at 4.15 a.m. Special Report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate on 27.7.1995 at 7.30 p.m. There is an unexplained delay of 24 hours between the occurrence and the special report reaching the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal. This delay has been utilised by the prosecution to falsely implicate the appellants. Moman Ram (PW-7) in his statement before the trial Court, has stated that he did not accompany his son Ram Niwas to PGI, Chandigarh. Statement of Moman Ram (PW-7) could have been recorded by the Investigating Officer. There was no need for him to wait for the statement of Ram Niwas (PW-6) to be recorded. 6. Learned counsel has further assailed the case of the prosecution on the ground that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account. As per the testimony of Ram Niwas (PW-6) and Moman Ram (PW-7), not less than six injuries were inflicted on the person of the deceased by the appellants. Dr. Jasmer Singh (PW-3) and Dr. Dalbir Singh (PW-4), who prepared the Medico-legal-report and conducted the postmortem examination respectively on the body of deceased Balwant Singh, found only one injury on the right side of the skull just above the right fore-head. 7. It is a case of a sudden fight. If the prosecution case is believed, it comes out from the prosecution evidence that the appellants did not have any intention to commit the murder of Balwant Singh. 7. It is a case of a sudden fight. If the prosecution case is believed, it comes out from the prosecution evidence that the appellants did not have any intention to commit the murder of Balwant Singh. The quarrel took place at the spur of the moment, when Moman Ram and Ram Niwas stopped Anita from throwing rubbish on the piece of land, which they had in their possession. At the most the appellants could be convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Learned counsel for the State has stated that the ocular account given before the Court is a truthful account. The doctor, though has opined that there was only one injury, but the other blows (injuries) inflicted, were not of that severity, that the injury could be seen on the body of the deceased. It is not a case of a sudden quarrel or a sudden fight. The appellants went back to their houses and came back armed with gandasa and lathis along with the other two appellants Wazir Singh and Chhota Ram. The other appellants also came with intention to inflict injuries. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State and perused the records with their assistance. 10. Occurrence had taken place on 26.7.1995 at 7.00 a.m. Distance between the Police Station, Sadar Kaithal and the place of occurrence is 6 kms. Injured Balwant Singh was brought to the Civil Hospital, Kaithal by his brother Ram Niwas (PW-6) and his father Moman Ram (PW-7). Distance between the Civil Hospital, Kaithal and the Police Station, Sadar Kaithal is about 3 kms. It has come in the testimony of Moman Ram (PW-7) that he did not accompany his son Ram Niwas (PW-6) to PGI, Chandigarh, but came back to his village after Balwant was taken to PGI, Chandigarh. Meaning thereby that Moman Ram, who had seen the occurrence, did not go to the police station to report the matter nor did the Police try to record his statement. First Information Report was recorded on 27.7.1995 at 4.15 a.m. and the special report reached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, on 27.7.1995 at 7.30 p.m., there is an unexplained delay of 24 hours from the time the occurrence had taken place till the special report reached the safe hands of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal. First Information Report was recorded on 27.7.1995 at 4.15 a.m. and the special report reached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, on 27.7.1995 at 7.30 p.m., there is an unexplained delay of 24 hours from the time the occurrence had taken place till the special report reached the safe hands of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal. We are of the considered view that this time was being utilised for consultations and confabulations by the complainant-party to falsely implicate Kesha Ram, Balraj, Suresh Kumar and Chhota Ram. 11. We are in consonance with the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants that there being only one injury on the person of the deceased and no other injury being found on his body, clearly takes us to the conclusion that Kesha Ram, Balraj, Suresh Kumar and Chhota Ram have been roped in. 12. Dr. Jasmer Singh (PW-3) has stated in his testimony that on 26.7.1995 at 8.15 a.m., he medico-legally examined Balwant Singh son of Moman Ram and found the following injury on his person :- "A lacerated wound on right side of skull just above right forehead 4 cm x 0.5 cm. Fresh bleeding was present. Below wound there was swelling about 7 x 5 cm. in size. I advised X-ray skull and surgeon opinion for nature of injury." 13. This witness has further stated that he examined the whole body of Balwant Singh, after removing his clothes. He did not find any apparent injury on any part of the body of injured Balwant Singh. He examined the entire body of Balwant Singh. He has further stated that the injured was brought for his medical examination by Ram Niwas, his brother. 14. Dr. Dalbir Singh (PW-4) has stated in his testimony that he conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Balwant Singh on 28.7.1995 at 1.30 p.m. and found the following injures on the person of the deceased : 1. "Oblique lacerated stitched wound of the size 4 x 0.5 cm x muscle deep directing anterio-posteriorly and medially was present over the right parietal region of the skull, 2.5 cms. anterial medial to the right parietal eminence. Proximal end of this wound was 10 cm. above the upper end of this wound was 10 cm above the upper end of the right pinna. Surrounding it bluish contusion of the size 6.5 x 4 cm was present." 2. anterial medial to the right parietal eminence. Proximal end of this wound was 10 cm. above the upper end of this wound was 10 cm above the upper end of the right pinna. Surrounding it bluish contusion of the size 6.5 x 4 cm was present." 2. Abrasion with red scab of the size 3 x 1.10 cm. was present over the anterior aspect of lower lip. 2.5 cm medical to right angle of mouth." 15. Ram Niwas (PW-6), in his testimony before the trial Court has stated that he was given fist blows by appellants Chhota Ram and Wazir Singh. He has further stated that ".... Wazira accused came back with a gandasi, whereas accused Chhota armed with lathi. Kesha, Balraj and Suresh accused, who are now present in Court also came out with a lathi each in their hand. Wazir accused opened the attack with a reversed side of gandasi on the head of Balwant which hit on right side of the head. Then accused Balraj gave a lathi blow, which struck on the back side of the head of Balwant. Suresh accused gave lathi blow on the back of Balwant. Kesha also gave lathi blows on the both arms of Balwant Singh. Chhota Ram accused gave fist and leg blows to Balwant Singh while he was lying on the ground...." 16. Moman Ram (PW-7), in his statement before the trial Court, has also stated, which is as follows :- "Wazira had a gandasi in his hand and all other accused had a gandasi each. Wazira gave a gandasi blow to Balwant Singh, my son, in his head. I do not know whether the gandasi blow was given from sharp side or reverse side. Balraj accused gave a lathi blow on the head of Balwant. Kesha accused gave a lathi blow on the back of Balwant. Balwant fell down and then other persons from the village came there." 17. It is clear from the testimony of Ram Niwas (PW-6) and Moman Ram (PW-7) that appellants Kesha Ram, Balraj, Suresh Kumar and Chhota Ram inflicted injuries on Balwant Singh with their respective weapons. Dr. Jasmer Singh (PW-3), who medico-legally examined Balwant on 26.7.1995 at 8.15 a.m. has stated that apart from the head injury, he did not find any other injury on the person of Balwant. Similarly, Dr. Dr. Jasmer Singh (PW-3), who medico-legally examined Balwant on 26.7.1995 at 8.15 a.m. has stated that apart from the head injury, he did not find any other injury on the person of Balwant. Similarly, Dr. Dalbir Singh (PW-4) has stated that he found one injury on the person of Balwant on the head of the deceased. Another injury on the lip, he stated, could be caused by a fall. Both the doctors have categorically stated that there was only one injury on the head of the deceased, which could be given by the reverse side of the gandasi, Ex. P-5. The medical evidence in this case does not corroborate the ocular account. Kesha Ram, Balraj, Suresh Kumar and Chhota Ram have been falsely implicated. They, at that time, were not present at the place of occurrence. Appellant Wazir Singh has inflicted this gandasi blow with its reverse side on the head of the deceased, which turned out to be the fatal blow. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Purshottam and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1873, wherein the Honble Apex Court has held that where there are contradictions between medical testimony and the eye-witnesses account regarding fatal injury of the deceased, medical evidence is to be preferred. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that at the most, an offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The case of the appellants falls under Section 300 within Exception 4 of the Indian Penal Code. A quarrel between the parties erupted suddenly. There was no intention on the part of appellant Wazir Singh to inflict a fatal injury on the deceased, nor did he have the knowledge that his blow on the head of Balwant Singh would prove fatal. 20. We are not convinced with this argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. Ram Niwas (PW-6) and Moman Ram (PW-7) have stated in their testimony that towards the South of the village abadi, they have a common Panjawa. It has been partitioned with the appellants. Appellants suspected that the complainant party had taken more share that what was due to them. Ram Niwas (PW-6) and Moman Ram (PW-7) have stated in their testimony that towards the South of the village abadi, they have a common Panjawa. It has been partitioned with the appellants. Appellants suspected that the complainant party had taken more share that what was due to them. Moman Ram (PW-7) had been pleading with the appellants that they can get the Panjawa repartitioned by metes and bounds and can give him that portion of land, which falls to his share. The appellants nourished a grudge against Moman Ram for allegedly taking a larger share. The immediate cause of the quarrel was Anita throwing rubbish in that portion of land, which Ram Niwas (PW-6) had in his possession. It is not a case of a sudden fight, but is a case, where a fight was going to erupt between the parties any day. The division of the Panjawa had not been done justly according to the appellants. Wazir Singh after quarrelling with Ram Niwas (PW-6) and Moman Ram (PW-7) went to his house and came back, armed with a gandasi. His intention at that moment of time was clearly to inflict injuries on the complainant party. He inflicted a blow with his gandasi not on any other part of the body, but straightaway on the head of the deceased. That single blow was enough to take the life of Balwant Singh. 21. As per the observations made above, we find Kesha Ram, Balraj, Suresh Kumar and Chhota Ram to be innocent and give them the benefit of doubt. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against these four appellants. They are acquitted of all the charges. If in custody, they be set free forthwith. 22. Appeal qua appellants Kesha Ram son of Datu Ram, Balraj son of Kesha Ram, Suresh Kumar son of Kesha Ram, Chhota Ram son of Datu Ram is allowed and qua appellant Wazir Singh son of Chhota Ram is dismissed. Appeal partly allowed.