A. K. GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS have been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 30-7-92 passed by First Additional sessions Judge, Sivpuri in Sessions trial No. 57/89. Against their conviction and sentence they have filed this appeal. ( 2 ) AS per prosecution story, on 24-12-88 the incident took place at about 11. 30 a. m. in the forest under Police Station subhashpura, district Shivpuri. The place of incident was 12 Kms. away from the police station. FIR of the incident was lodged by Rajaram (PW-1) on the same day at about 13. 45 p. m. As per the FIR, he had gone in the forest near Kataghat to cut some bushes. When he was cutting the bushes, he heard the cries. Somebody was weeping and shouting. He came towards cries near the passage and he saw that Ramswaroop Gujar, ramhet Gujar and Narayan Singh Gujar of his village armed with farsa, axe and ballam were assaulting Ramhet son of Mangal Singh by these weapons. After seeing them he raised voice that why he is being killed and went on the spot to save him. The appellants fled away towards Godhar hill. He went near the person- He was injured having injuries on his head, neck, temporal region, jaw, hips, back side and also on the legs. The blood was oozing. He was not alive. Adjoining to his body one cycle and can of milk were also lying. After seeing, he immediately ran towards the village to inform the incident to Jaswant, brother of the deceased, and Mangal Singh, father of the deceased. Thereafter, all the persons came on spot and he went to lodge the FIR. Crime was registered and matter was investigated. Deadbody was referred for post-mortem. Spot-map was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused persons were arrested, articles were seized, bloodstained soil and plain soil were also seized along with the clothes of the deceased and they were referred for chemical examination. After investigation prosecution filed chargesheet against the appellants before the Sessions court and against Ramhet before the juvenile Court as he was minor at the time of commission of crime. ( 3 ) AT the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and after considering the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid, against which they have preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) AT the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and after considering the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid, against which they have preferred this appeal. ( 4 ) WE have heard Shri J. P. Gupta, learned senior counsel instructed by Miss alpana Khare, learned counsel for the appellants, and Shri C. S. Dixit, learned Public prosecutor, for the respondent-State, and perused the evidence on record. ( 5 ) SHRI J. P. Gupta, learned senior counsel vehemently argued and submitted that rajaram (PW-1), who is said to be the sole eye-witness in the case, Udaisingh (PW-3)and other witnesses of the incident mohkamsingh (PW-5) and Jaswant Singh (PW-9) are close relatives of the deceased. Their relations with the appellants are also highly inimical. They are having a long family enmity between them. It is alleged that co-accused Ramhet, who was tried before the Juvenile Court, who is the son of Antar singh, and these appellants, who are the close relatives of Antar Singh, have been falsely implicated in the case on the ground that Antar Singh has been convicted for the murder of one Angad Singh, who was the brother of Mangal Singh and later on this antar Singh has also been murdered by the members of complainant party, in which three witnesses of this case, namely, rajaram (PW-1), Mangal Singh (PW-2) and mohkam Singh (PW-5) are the accused persons. He has further submitted that in the background of these two reasons the evidence of all the witnesses are totally fabricated. Rajaram (PW-1) was not present on spot. He is a chance witness and the prosecution has failed to prove any genuine reason of his presence on the spot at the time of commission of crime. He has further argued that the incident took place on 24-12-88 and the FIR of the same was lodged at 13. 45 hours in the noon but the copy of the same was forwarded to the Magistrate on 26-12-88, i. e. , after two days and no sufficient reason for this delay has been explained and on this point he cited various cases and drew attention of this court on the point that the FIR is ante-times and antedated. 45 hours in the noon but the copy of the same was forwarded to the Magistrate on 26-12-88, i. e. , after two days and no sufficient reason for this delay has been explained and on this point he cited various cases and drew attention of this court on the point that the FIR is ante-times and antedated. In this connection he placed reliance on decisions in the cases of Ishwar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2423 : (1976 Cri LJ 1883); Meharaj Singh v. State of U. P. , 1994 SCC (Cri) 1390 : (1995 cri LJ 457); Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 SCC (Cri ). 1551; Radhakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala, 1995 SCC (Cri) 345; chhotu v. State of Haryana, 1996 SCC (Cri)1161 : (1996 Cri LJ 4164) and Thanedar singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 sc 175 : (2002 Cri LJ 254 ). He also placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 sc 3031 : (2001 Cri LJ 4708) and Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3173 : (2001 cri LJ 3969) and on the question of the evidence of sole testimony he placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Joseph v. State of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 507 : (2003 cri LJ 813 ). ( 6 ) DURING the course of the arguments shri Gupta, learned senior counsel has taken us to the whole evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail and pointed out various discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses. His submission is that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case by producing the evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and claimed for benefit of doubt and prayed for acquittal of the appellants. ( 7 ) IN reply, Shri C. S. Dixit, learned Public prosecutor suppored the prosecution case as well as the judgment and findings recorded by the Court below. ( 8 ) AS per the medical evidence of Dr. Chandra Prakash Tiwari (PW-8), the deceased died because of incised wounds and punctured wounds on his body. The deceased received as many as 15 injuries and also multiple injuries on his back. Those multiple injuries were countless. ( 8 ) AS per the medical evidence of Dr. Chandra Prakash Tiwari (PW-8), the deceased died because of incised wounds and punctured wounds on his body. The deceased received as many as 15 injuries and also multiple injuries on his back. Those multiple injuries were countless. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was shock due to excessive haemorrhage (due to cutting of major neck vessels) and laceration of occipital lobe of brain. The injuries were homicidal in nature. The doctor has stated that all the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the period of death was between 24 hours to 48 hours from the time of post-mortem. In the cross-examination he has clarified that all the injuries were caused by hard and sharp-cutting weapons including piercing weapon. In the cross-examination he has admitted that on the right hip the deceased had also received one lacerated wound which was caused by hard and blunt object and rest injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon. He has separately described the multiple injuries on the back. He has denied this suggestion that the injuries may be caused by some dangerous animal. Thus, from the evidence of the doctor it is clear that death of the deceased was due to the aforesaid injuries which were caused by hard and sharp cutting weapons and they were homicidal in nature. ( 9 ) RAJARAM (PW-1) lodged the FIR. He has been cited as eye-witness by the prosecution. He has stated that he had seen the incident. The incident occurred near kataghat at about 11 a. m. He was present on the spot and he had gone in the forest to cut the bushes. He heard the cries and he went towards that and he found that all the appellants were carrying weapons in their hands and beating the deceased. Thereafter he had commotioned (cautioned) to them that why the deceased is being killed. Hearing the said commotion the appellants fled away from the spot. He heard the cries and he went towards that and he found that all the appellants were carrying weapons in their hands and beating the deceased. Thereafter he had commotioned (cautioned) to them that why the deceased is being killed. Hearing the said commotion the appellants fled away from the spot. ( 10 ) UDAISINGH (PW-3) is another witness of this circumstance that he had gone towards a hilly track of Godhar along with sheeps and goats and when he was coming back with them for taking water near kataghat, he had seen all the three appellants carrying weapons in their hand running away and thereafter when he came near kataghat river, he found the deadbody of the deceased and thereafter he went to inform the incident to the family members of the deceased. Other three witnesses Mangal singh (PW-2), who is the father of the deceased, Mohkam Singh (PW-5), who is the father of Udaisingh (PW-3) and is also the relative of the deceased, Jaswant Singh (PW-9), who is the brother of the deceased and son of Mangal Singh, have deposed that rajaram and Udaisingh both came and informed them about seeing of the assailants and their overt act. ( 11 ) IT is true that all the prosecution witnesses are closely related with the deceased and it is also not in dispute that the relations between Mangal Singh, father of the deceased, and Antar Singh, father of co-accused ramhet and the appellants who are also closely related, are highly inimical. It has come in the evidence of Rajaran (PW-1)that he is the nephew of Mangal Singh. Jaswant Singh (PW-9) is the son of Mangal singh and Mohkam Singh (PW-5) is the cousin brother of Mangal Singh. As seriously pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants it is not in dispute that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined carefully, in the light of this fact that the prosecution witnesses are closely related to each other and the relations between Antar Singh and Mangal Singh are highly inimical. ( 12 ) RAJARAM (PW-1) has admitted that one Antar Singh was the accused in the murder case of Angad Singh, who was the brother of Mangal Singh. In that murder case antar Singh was accused. ( 12 ) RAJARAM (PW-1) has admitted that one Antar Singh was the accused in the murder case of Angad Singh, who was the brother of Mangal Singh. In that murder case antar Singh was accused. He was released on parole for some days and co-accused ramhet is the son of Antar Singh and appellant Ramswaroop is the nephew of Antar singh and Narain Singh is the brother of antar Singh, therefore, both the appellants are related with Antar Singh. Rajaram (PW-1) has also admitted that subsequently Antar singh has also been murdered and in that murder case he (Rajaram), Mangal Singh and his son Jaswant Singh are the accused persons and the case is pending. ( 13 ) IN the light of this background if the case of prosecution is examined, it is found that though the relations between them may be inimical but the evidence of Rajaram (PW-1)who is also the complainant and who has lodged the FIR and who is also the sole eyewitness of the incident cannot be simply discarded on the ground that he is closely related with the complainant party and deceased. We have carefully examined the evidence of Rajaram. His presence on spot has been seriously doubted and it was argued that he is nothing but a chance witness as he has gone towards Kataghat side first time to cut the bushes but that circumstance alone is not sufficient to discard his evidence. Incident took place on village road, from that road, the deceased was passing and had gone to sell the milk towards shivpuri. He was daily going on that road. The deceased had bicycle and was also having milk cans. Other villagers and milkmen also used to travel from that road. The place where Rajaram was cutting the bushes was hardly a furlong away from the said road, therefore, the presence of this witnedd simplty cannot be doubted that why he had gone in the forest near that place to cut the bushes on that day. The place of occurrence was not absolutely an isolated place but it was the place near the village road from where not only the deceased was passing through but other persons of the village also used to pass through. Rajaram (PW-1) has admitted that he had seen the incident from a distance of 10 paces. In. the cross-examination he has maintained his version. Rajaram (PW-1) has admitted that he had seen the incident from a distance of 10 paces. In. the cross-examination he has maintained his version. It was questioned that why he had not informed his family members. Considering his overall evidence we found that his evidence is reliable and nothing adverse has come in his evidence except few minor discrepancies which are natural in nature. The incident took place on 22-12-88. He was examined in the Court on 20-3-1991, around after two years, therefore, some minor discrepancies are bound to come. His statement is fully consistent with his case diary statement as well as with the version of FIR. ( 14 ) SO far as the evidence of Udaisingh (PW-3) is concerned, he is the witness, who had seen the deadbody and before that he had also seen the appellants running towards godhar hill. His presence in the forest area was quite natural as like other days, on the date of incident also he had gone in the forest with the sheep and goats and he was in the area of Godhar hill. He had seen the appellants and lateron he came near kataghat along with cattle for their water and he had seen the deadbody of deceased on spot and thereafter he went to his house and first he informed to his father Mohkam singh (PW-5 ). He was also cross-examined at length. In the cross-examination he has admitted that in his case diary statement (Ex. D/3) it has not been mentioned that he has stated the name of assailants. He was cross-examined as if he was the eye-witness of the incident but admittedly Udaisingh was not the eye-witness but he is the witness of circumstantial evidence that he had seen the appellants running away towards the hill and thereafter he had seen the deadbody of deceased and had informed the incident to his father and also to Jaswant Singh (PW-9), who is the brother of the deceased. The other three witneses Mangal Singh, mohkam Singh and Jaswantsingh are the witnesses to whom Rajaram and Udaisingh had informed and thereafter they went to spot and had seen the deadbody and there-after Rajaram went to lodge the FIR. ( 15 ) THE evidence of Rajaram (PW-1) is fully corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Chandra Prakash Tiwari (PW-8 ). The other three witneses Mangal Singh, mohkam Singh and Jaswantsingh are the witnesses to whom Rajaram and Udaisingh had informed and thereafter they went to spot and had seen the deadbody and there-after Rajaram went to lodge the FIR. ( 15 ) THE evidence of Rajaram (PW-1) is fully corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Chandra Prakash Tiwari (PW-8 ). The injuries received by the deceased may be caused by the weapons which the appellants were carrying. Rajaram has specifically stated that Ramswaroop was having ballam in his hand, Narayan Singh Kulhadi (axe) and ramhet was having farsa. Ballam is a piercing weapon. Kulhadi and farsa are sharp-edged weapon. The doctor has also found injuries by sharp cutting weapons and also one lacerated wound on the left side of the hip and also multiple injuries on the back of the deceased; they were contusions and abrasions, which may be caused by ballam also, a hard and blunt object, as the pointed piece of iron is attached in the lathi. Therefore, the evidence of Rajaram is fully corroborated by medical evidence. This fact is further corroborated by the recovery of weapons from the appellants. ( 16 ) EX. P/22 is the spot map, which has been proved by Rajaram (PW-1) and ramsingh (PW-7 ). The accused/appellant narayan Singh was arrested on 1 -1 -89 from the village Bulukho near the river. Rajaram (PW-1) and Jaswant Singh (PW-9) are the witnesses of this arrest memo. They are also the witnesses of memorandum under Section 27 prepared on the basis of the information given by Narain Singh and at his instance an axe was seized from his house. Ex. P/4 is the memorandum and Ex. P/5 is its seizure memo. Accused Ramswaroop was arrested by arrest memo Ex. P/14. Ex P/10 is the memo under Section 27 prepared on the basis of information given by ramswaroop and vide seizure memo Ex. P/11 one ballam which is a piercing weapon, which is attached in the lathi, was also seized. In Ex. P/11 word "attached in the lathi" has been mentioned specifically. Ex. P/6 is the Naksha Panchayatnama, which has been proved by 'ramsingh (PW-7 ). Ex. P/7 is Najari Naksha. Bloodstained and simple soil was seized from spot by Ex. P/8. Cycle and milk cans were also seized by Ex. P/9. In Ex. P/11 word "attached in the lathi" has been mentioned specifically. Ex. P/6 is the Naksha Panchayatnama, which has been proved by 'ramsingh (PW-7 ). Ex. P/7 is Najari Naksha. Bloodstained and simple soil was seized from spot by Ex. P/8. Cycle and milk cans were also seized by Ex. P/9. The clothes of the deceased were also seized in a sealed packet by Ex. P/13. All the articles were referred for chemical examination. Ex. P/18, Ex. P/19 and Ex. P/20 are the FSL report, report of Serolo-gist and Chemical Examiner. Ex. P/18 is the report of Technical Officer of the clothes of the deceased and as per his finding on article 'd' which are the clothes of the deceased, the marks of torn were found, which may be received from the Articles 'e' 'f and 'h' which are the weapons Kulhadi, farsa and ballam. As per another report Ex. P/19, on Article 'a' which is a can of milk. Article 'b' soil. Article D-I bedsheet. Article D-2 towel, Article D-3 Kurta and Article D-4 underwear of the deceased, blood was found but on weapons Articles 'c', 'e', 'f', 'g' and 'h' no blood was found. ( 17 ) THUS, from the aforesaid ocular, medical, circumstantial and evidence of investigation it is clear that prosecution has successfully proved the allegations by producing sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence on record for the involvement of the appellants in the commission of crime. ( 18 ) SHRI Gupta pointed out various infirmities in the evidence of Mangal (PW-2), mohkam Singh (PW-5) and Jaswant Singh (PW-9), to whom the information was given by Rajaram and Udaisingh but we have perused those infirmities in the statements and we found that those infirmities are formal and natural in nature and from them it is not possible to say that the prosecution story is either false or unbelievable. The witnesses are examined in the Court after two years, therefore, some minor discrepancies on the question who came first, who met first and who reached first are bound to arise but they are not of serious nature and do not lead to the conclusion that the entire prosecution story is false or the appellants have been implicated falsely on the ground of enmity. We also do not find that any such kind of evidence is available on record which renders the evidence of Rajaram and Udaisingh totally false. ( 19 ) SHRI Gupta vehemently argued on the question that the FIR is antedated and ante-timed and the copy of the FIR was not forwarded to the Magistrate forthwith. So far as the FIR Ex. P/1 is concerned, as per the fir incident took place at 11. 30 a. m. on 24-12-88 and the FIR was lodged at 13. 45 hours. The distance of police station is around 12 kms. away from the place of occurrence. It has come in the evidence that it was day of Saturday and copy of FIR was received by the Magistrate on 26-12-88. Sobran Singh (PW-12) had despatched the aforesaid FIR to J. M. F. C. , Shivpuri on the same day. He has produced the despatch register. Entry has been made at serial No. 2019 and its counter copy is Ex. P/15. Though he has admitted that Receipt Clerk has not put the date below his signatures and because the paging number has not been put on the despatch register and Dak book, it cannot be presumed that the false entry has been made. The FIR was written on Saturday and next day was Sunday, therefore, it was received in the Office of j. M. F. C. on Monday and Court Munshi ramsewak had delivered it, though ramsewak has not been examined, but this is the admitted position on record that the copy of FIR was received in the Office of magistrate on Monday, i. e. , on 26-12-88. No doubt, as per the provision of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure copy of the FIR should be forwarded forthwith without any delay. In this case, there is delay of two days, the incident took place on saturday and the copy was forwarded on Monday. Ex. P/15 is a substance of FIR and Ex. P/16 is the entry of the despatch register, by which it has been shown that on the same day it was despatched. Learned Public Prosecutor explained that because the investigation was continuing up to 7. 30 in the evening on the day of incident, therefore, it could not be forwarded on the same day. This explanation is also not sufficient as under Section 157, Cr. Learned Public Prosecutor explained that because the investigation was continuing up to 7. 30 in the evening on the day of incident, therefore, it could not be forwarded on the same day. This explanation is also not sufficient as under Section 157, Cr. P. C. it is nowhere stated that the copy should be forwarded after completing the investigation. But considering the totality of the circumstances this explanation of the prosecution is not sufficient that because of Sunday the copy was forwarded on Monday. ( 20 ) IN case of Ishwar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2423 : (1976 cri LJ 1883), it was observed that the FIR in respect of cognizable offence should be sent forthwith to a Magistrate competent to take cognizance of offence. Unexplained delay in sending FIR is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence, and it was held that in such a case the evidence of the eye-witness cannot be accepted at its face value. ( 21 ) IN case of Meharaj Singh v. State of u. P. , 1994 SCC (Cri) 1390 : (1995 Cri LJ 457), it was observed as under:"12. FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case Is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eye-witnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the fir was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the Courts generally look for certain external checks. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the fir was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the Courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. Prosecution has led no evidence at all in this behalf. The second external check equally Important is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. Even though the inquest report, prepared under Section 174, Cr. P. C. , is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during Inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still In an embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante-timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR In our opinion, on account of the infirmities as noticed above, the fir has lost its value and authenticity and it appears to us that the same has been ante-timed and had not been recorded till the inquest proceedings were over at the spot by PW8. "it has been further held in para 15 that the alleged eye-witnesses are undoubtedly deeply interested in the prosecution but that by itself cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. It, however, certainly puts the court on guard to scrutinise their evidence more carefully and their unnatural conduct should be kept in mind. "it has been further held in para 15 that the alleged eye-witnesses are undoubtedly deeply interested in the prosecution but that by itself cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. It, however, certainly puts the court on guard to scrutinise their evidence more carefully and their unnatural conduct should be kept in mind. ( 22 ) IN case of Arjun Marik v. State of bihar, 1994 SCC (Cri) 1551, the Court has observed that Section 157, Cr. P. C. mandates that if, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report. Section 157, cr. P. C. thus in other words directs the sending of the report forthwith i. e. without any delay and Immediately. Further. Section 159, cr. P. C. envisages that on receiving such report, the Magistrate; may direct an investigation or, if he thinks fit, to proceed at once or depute any other Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed to hold a perliminary inquiry into the case in the manner provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The forwarding of the first Information report is indispensable and absolute and It has to be forwarded with earliest despatch which intention is Implicit with the use of the word "forthwith" occurring in Section 157, which means promptly and without any undue delay. The purpose and object is so obvious which is spelt out from the combined reading of Sections 157 and 159, Cr. P. C. It has the dual purpose, firstly to avoid the possibility of Improvement in the prosecution story and Introduction of any distorted version by deliberations and consultation and secondly to enable the Magistrate concerned to have a watch on the progress of the Investigation. ( 23 ) IN case of Munshi Prasad v. State of bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3031 : (2001 Cri LJ 4708), the Court has held that while it is true that Section 157 makes it obligatory on the Officer Incharge of the Police Station to send a report of the Information received to a Magistrate forthwith, but that does not mean an Imply to denounce and discard an otherwise positive and trustworthy evidence on record. Technicality ought not to outweigh the course of justice if the Court is otherwise convinced and has come to a conclusion as regards the truthfulness of the prosecution case, merely delay, which can otherwise be ascertained to be reasonable, would not Itself demolish the prosecution case and Supreme Court has also considered the previous decision in the case of Shiv ram v. State of U. P. , AIR 1998 SC 49 : (1998 cri LJ 76) and three Judges Bench decision in the case of Pala Singh v. State of Punjab, air 1972 SC 2679 : (1973 Crl LJ 59), in which it was observed that if it was found that FIR was recorded and the investigation started on that FIR then however, improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned, it cannot by itself Justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution unsupportable. ( 24 ) IN case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, air 2001 SC 3173 : (2001 Crl LJ 3969), supreme Court has again considered the provision of Section 157, Cr. P. C. and also the decision in the case of Palasingh (1973 crl LJ 59) (supra) and Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2304 : (1976 Cri LJ 1757), in which it was held that delay in despatch of first Information report by Itself is not a circumstance which can throw out the prosecution's case in its entirety, particularly when it is found on facts that the prosecution had given a very cogent and reasonable explanation for the delay in despatch of the FIR ( 25 ) AGAIN in case of Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 9 SCC 283 : (2005 Crl lj 1402), the FIR was recorded on 29-10-99 at about 1 LOO a. m. and It reached the magistrate on 30-10-99 at about 12 noon. The Court held that it cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever there is some delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate concerned, the prosecution version becomes unreliable. It would depend upon the facts of each case. In the instant case as appears from the records the investigation was taken up Immediately and certain steps In Investigation were taken. Therefore, the plea that there was no FIR in existence at the relevant time has no substance. It would depend upon the facts of each case. In the instant case as appears from the records the investigation was taken up Immediately and certain steps In Investigation were taken. Therefore, the plea that there was no FIR in existence at the relevant time has no substance. Additionally, no question was asked by the investigating officer as to the reason for the alleged delayed despatch of the FIR had this been done, the investigating officer could have explained the circumstances. This having not done, no adverse Inference can be drawn. ( 26 ) IN the instant case, the Incident took place at about 11. 30 a. m. on 24-12-88. The fir was lodged promptly at 13. 45 hours on 24-12-88 Itself. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was around 12 kms. Immediately the investigation was taken up and investigating officer reached on spot, prepared spot map Ex. P/2 at 15. 15 hours. The witnesses were summoned for the preparation of inquest report at 15. 05 hours. Naksha panchayatnama Ex. P/6 was prepared at 15. 30 hours. The plain and blood stained soil was seized by seizure memo and two milk canes of the deceased were also seized by Ex. P/9 at 16. 30 hours. The deadbody was also referred for post-mortem to Shivpuri at 16. 00 hours itself and the body was received in the District Hospital at Shivpuri at 7. 30 p. m. on the same day. From these documents it is clear that, the investigation was taken up immediately and by 7. 30 p. m. the body was received in the District Hospital shivpuri. From these documents it is clear that the FIR is neither ante-dated nor ante-timed. Ex. P/16 is the entry of the despatch register, according to which the said FIR was despatched on the same day but it was delivered by Ex. P/17 on 26-12-88, i. e. , on monday to the Magistrate. Sobran Singh, head Constable (PW 12) has explained the reasons for delay that because of Sunday it could not be referred to the Magistrate. in this case too there is no material cross-examination from either H. S. Yadav (PW13), who was the Asstt. Sub-Inspector or from lalla Singh Kushwaha (PW 11), who was the sub-Inspector. Sobran Singh, head Constable (PW 12) has explained the reasons for delay that because of Sunday it could not be referred to the Magistrate. in this case too there is no material cross-examination from either H. S. Yadav (PW13), who was the Asstt. Sub-Inspector or from lalla Singh Kushwaha (PW 11), who was the sub-Inspector. From the explanation of sobran Singh (PW 12) it is clear that due to sunday It was not forwarded but certainly there is no clarification that why on the same day it was not forwarded. The question would be that when the Investigation was started quickly and police reached on spot and documents were prepared whether the delay in forwarding the FIR would be fatal in this case and whether the FIR can be treated as ante-dated and ante-timed. After considering the evidence on record, we do not find any such Infirmity in the prosecution case or any adverse effect of delay in forwarding the FIR on the prosecution case ( 27 ) ON the question that in this case all the witnesses are related to the deceased and the relations with the members of the family of Antar Singh are highly inimical. the possibility to implicate the appellants cannot be ruled out but there is nothing in the evidence of the witnesses from which it can be inferred that the appellants have been implicated falsely. It is also true that the enmity is always a double-edged weapon but when it is argued that the appellants have been implicated falsely, there must be evidence on record to this effect. There is nothing in the cross examination of all the witnesses that the appellants have been implicated falsely. it cannot be held that Rajaram (PW 1) is a chance witness and his presence was doubtful on the scene of occurrence. Slight and minor variations in the evidence of witnesses in the cross-examination suggest that the witnesses are not telling lie and they are not tutored. Though the statements of witnesses were recorded in the Court after a gap of near about two years, even then there is nothing adverse on record which shows that the evidence of prosecution is either manufactured or concocted. ( 28 ) THERE is no bar that the conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of solitary eye-witness. Though the statements of witnesses were recorded in the Court after a gap of near about two years, even then there is nothing adverse on record which shows that the evidence of prosecution is either manufactured or concocted. ( 28 ) THERE is no bar that the conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of solitary eye-witness. It is true that in such circumstances the evidence of solitary eye-witness should be scrutinised carefully and that should be not only corroborated, but must be cogent, reliable and should inspire confidence. We find in this case that the evidence of solitary eye-witness Rajaram (PW 1)inspires confidence and there is nothing on record to disbelive his testimony. The evidence of Udaisingh (PW3) who is a witness of circumstantial evidence is also reliable and supports the evidence of Rajaram (PW 1)that the incident took place at the place where it is narrated by Rajaram (PW 1 ). The other circumstances are also there in the case which lead to support the conclusion as arrived by the trial Court. The evidence of enmity between the parties is also on record. It has also come in the evidence that antar Singh, who was the accused in the murder case of Angad Singh, brother of mangal Singh, had been convicted and at the time of commission of this offence he was on parole. It has also come in the evidence that lateron antar Singh has also been murdered and the witnesses of this case, namely, Rajaram (PW 1), Mangal Singh (PW2)and Jaswant Singh (PW9) are the accused persons in the murder case of Antar Singh. Therefore, these circumstances further suggest that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. No case is made out for interference in this appeal by the appellants. ( 29 ) AFTER considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence we found that the trial Court has not committed any illegality and the findings recorded are liable to be affirmed. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and surely stand cancelled. They shall surrender before Chief Judicial magistrate, Shivpuri within a period of thirty days from today to undergo the remaining part of the jail sentence. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and surely stand cancelled. They shall surrender before Chief Judicial magistrate, Shivpuri within a period of thirty days from today to undergo the remaining part of the jail sentence. In case of their failure to surrender, the Chief Judicial magistrate shall have liberty to take them into custody and commit them to jail. Appeal dismissed. .