JUDGMENT K.S. GAREWAL, J. 1. Three brothers, Narinder Pal, Jawahar Lal and Mohinder Pal alongwith their parents Sat Pal and Satya Devi, of Dhandiala, Police Station Sadar Batala, were tried by learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur for having abducted and then murdered their neighbour and close relative Pardeep Kumar. The learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated April 2, 1997 acquitted Sat Pal and Satya Devi but convicted Narinder Pal, Jawahar Lal and Mohinder Pal for the charge of abduction as well as murder. They were sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and imprisonment for five years under Section 364 I.P.C. There were also sentences of fine and sentences in default of payment of fine. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Narinder Pal, Jawahar Lal and Mohinder Pal have come up in appeal. 2. According to the prosecution, on February 8, 1995 at about 8 P.M. Pardeep Kumar deceased, a tent house owner at nearby Jaintipur, was standing outside his house in Dhandiala after dinner. At 8-30 P.M. the three appellants alongwith their parents came from the side of their house. Pardeep Kumar was physically picked up by the accused and when he raised an alarm his mother Kaushalya Devi (PW-2) and sister Madhu Bala (PW-3) were also attracted to the spot. Pardeep Kumar was taken to the nearby haveli of Sucha Singh. His mother Kaushalya Devi and sister Madhu Bala also reached there and saw Satya Devi gagging Pardeep Kumar’s mouth, Narinder Pal hitting him on chest, arms and legs with a hammer, Mohinder Pal giving him 7/8 sua blows all over his body and Jawahar Lal hitting him with hockey stick on different parts of the body. The prosecution alleged that Pardeep Kumar was assaulted because he had opened the door of his house on the common passage. The occurrence was witnessed by Kaushalya Devi, Madhu Bala and also by Surjit Singh (DW-l) who had also been attracted to the spot. They had all seen the occurrence in moon light. After inflicting a number of injuries to Pardeep Kumar the accused left the spot with their respective weapons leaving Pardeep Kumar bleeding from his nose, legs and arms and near to death. 3. Pardeep Kumar was evacuated from the spot in Surjit Singh’s truck and taken to Civil Hospital, Batala. They had all seen the occurrence in moon light. After inflicting a number of injuries to Pardeep Kumar the accused left the spot with their respective weapons leaving Pardeep Kumar bleeding from his nose, legs and arms and near to death. 3. Pardeep Kumar was evacuated from the spot in Surjit Singh’s truck and taken to Civil Hospital, Batala. At the Civil Hospital, Pardeep Kumar was medico legally examined at 11-45 P.M. on February 8, 1995 by Dr. Inderjit Singh (PW-5) but he died after a few hours at 2-30 A.M. on February 9,1995. 4. The matter was reported to the police by Kaushalya Devi (PW-2). Inspector Baldev Singh S.H.O. P.S.Sadar Batala (PW-6) recorded Kaushalya Devi’s statement at the Dead House,Civil Hospital, Batala at 7.00 A.M. and on its basis F .I.R. was registered at Police Station at 7-10 A.M, Special report of the F .I.R. was delivered to the Judicial Magistrate at Batala at 9.00 A.M. on February 9, 1995. Inspector Baldev Singh commenced investigation by preparing the inquest report on the dead body and sending the dead body for post mortem examination. Thereafter he went to the spot and prepared the rough site plan of the place of the occurrence and lifted the blood stained earth from there. 5. The post mortem examination on the dead body of Pardeep Kumar was conducted by Dr. Gurpal Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Batala at 3.00 P.M. on February 9, 1995. The following injuries were found on the dead body: 1. Reddish contusion on right lateral posterior part of chest in axillary line 6cm x 4 cm lateral to right nipple. 2. Reddish contusions 5 in number varying size 1/2 x1cm and 1 x 1/4 cm each in an area of 10 cm x 5cm on front of right chest just below right nipple. 3. Lacerated wounds two in numbers on the front and upper part of right lower leg, I 1/2 cm x 1 cm and 2 1/2 m x 1 cm. Underlying bone was not fractured. 4. Lacerated wound on front of left lower leg below left knee joint five in numbers varying from 1/2 cm x 1cm, 1cm x 2cm, 1/2 cm x 1cm, 1cm x 2 1/2 cm, 1 cm x 1/4cm each on whole leg and underlying bone was not fractured. 5. Abrasion on the left elbow joint 1/2cm x 1 cm. 6. 4. Lacerated wound on front of left lower leg below left knee joint five in numbers varying from 1/2 cm x 1cm, 1cm x 2cm, 1/2 cm x 1cm, 1cm x 2 1/2 cm, 1 cm x 1/4cm each on whole leg and underlying bone was not fractured. 5. Abrasion on the left elbow joint 1/2cm x 1 cm. 6. Index and middle fingers on the left side were crushed. Underlying bone was also crushed. 7. Reddish contusions five in numbers on the back of lower abdomen varying size 1/2 cm x 1cm and 1cm x 1/4 cm (each). On dissection of the chest it was found that the posterior ends of 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th ribs on the right side were fractured. Right lung and its posterior surface was lacerated. There was blood in the right chest cavity. Lacerations were also present on the posterior and upper part of the liver measuring 2cm x 1cm. There was also blood in the peritoneal cavity. 6. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time that elapsed between injuries and death was six hours. Post mortem had been conducted within 24 hours of the death. 7. Narinder Pal, Mohinder Pal and Jawahar Lal were arrested on February 14, 1995 while Sat Pal and Satya Devi were arrested on February 19, 1995. Narinder Pal, Mohinder Pal and Jawahar Lal were interrogated and they made their respective disclosure statements on the basis of which Narinder Pal’s hammer, Mohinder Pal’s sua and Jawahar Lal’s hockey stick were recovered and taken into possession. Satya Devi was interrogated and a chuni was recovered from her possession. After completion of the investigation accused were sent up for trial. 8. At the trial accused were charged under Section 364, 302 (against Narinder Pal, Mohinder Pal and Jawahar Lal) 302 read with Section 149 IPC against Sat Pal and Satya Devi accused. All the accused were also charged under Section 148 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. Prosecution examined Dr. Gurpal Singh (PW -1), Kaushalya Devi (PW-2), Madhu Bala (PW-3), Satish Chander (PW-4), Dr. Inderjit Singh (PW-5), DSP Baldev Singh (PW-6), Subhash Chander (PW-7) and Ajit Singh (PW -8). 10. All the accused were also charged under Section 148 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. Prosecution examined Dr. Gurpal Singh (PW -1), Kaushalya Devi (PW-2), Madhu Bala (PW-3), Satish Chander (PW-4), Dr. Inderjit Singh (PW-5), DSP Baldev Singh (PW-6), Subhash Chander (PW-7) and Ajit Singh (PW -8). 10. After completion of the prosecution evidence accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused denied the various circumstances which have appeared against them and pleaded false implication. When called upon to enter defence, the accused examined Surjit Singh (DW-1). This witness testified that on the evening of the occurrence his younger brother had got married and the doli had reached their house. Many friends and relatives had assembled in his house and celebrations were taking place. At about 9 P.M. his aunt Swarani came inside and told him that some persons were quarrelling outside. At that time all the accused were present inside the house and they were also participating in the celebrations. Pardeep Kumar’s mother Kaushalya Devi was also present. When this witness alongwith Kaushalya Devi went out they saw Pardeep Kumar lying injured. Pardeep Kumar was evacuated in a truck and taken to the hospital. 11. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that charge against Sat Pal and Satya Devi had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and as a result extended benefit of doubt to them. Sat Pal and Satya Devi were acquitted. Narinder Pal, Jawahar Lal and Mohinder Pal were found guilty, convicted and sentenced as described above. 12. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the prosecution case against the appellants was very weak on account of several factors. There was considerable delay in reporting the matter to the police, the occurrence had taken place at 8-30 P.M. but Kaushalya Devi’s statement was not recorded until the next day at 7 A.M. Pardeep Kumar had been taken to Civil Hospital, Batala which adjoins Police Station Sadar, Batala but even so none of the witnesses ventured to report the matter to the police. The prosecution story was also unbelievable, there was no evidence that the deceased had been dragged from outside his house to the haveli where he was brutally assaulted. The prosecution story was also unbelievable, there was no evidence that the deceased had been dragged from outside his house to the haveli where he was brutally assaulted. It was hard to believe that the deceased could be physically picked up and carried away without putting any resistance and without there being any tell-tale signs of injury which would normally occur in a such a situation. According to the learned counsel the witnesses as well as the accused had been present at Surjit Singh’s house. There was no dispute between the deceased and the accused. No quarrel had occurred between them. Somebody came and informed them that Pardeep Kumar was lying injured near Sucha Singh’s haveli. It was a blind murder which had taken place at about l0 P.M. and no one had witnessed what had happened. 13. In the present case there are several circumstances which tend to show that the witnesses were present and had seen the deceased being hammered in Sucha Singh’s haveli. The injuries of the deceased, as per the post mortem report, are the most convincing evidence of the manner in which he was beaten because these injuries can point to the weapons used in the attack and tell us a lot about the incident with considerable accuracy. The medical evidence would also help us in arriving at a conclusion whether the deceased was dragged by the accused or physically picked up and forcibly taken to the place where he was ultimately to receive a beating. 14. Medical evidence also gives useful corroboration to the eye witness account and can help us to reach a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of an eye witness, if manner in which the occurrence had been described becomes some what doubtful on the basis of the medical evidence. The deceased had two types of injuries, reddish contusions and lacerated wounds. The two fatal injuries were the contusions on the right side of the chest described as injuries 1 and 2. There was reddish contusion on the right lateral posterior of chest measuring 6cm x 4 cm and there were five similar contusions of different sizes measuring between 1/2 cm x 1 cm, and 1 cm x 1;4 cm each in an area of 10 cm x 5cm on front of right chest just below right nipple. These were the only injuries on the front chest. These were the only injuries on the front chest. The deceased also had five reddish contusions on the back of lower abdomen of similar dimensions as five contusions described under injury 2. What is important to notice is that these injuries had led to fracture of 4 ribs and resultant injury to the right lung, collection of blood in the right chest cavity, injury on the liver and blood in the peritoneal cavity. 15. The lacerated wounds present on the legs do not show any fracture of the underlying bone. However, under injury 6 two fingers of the left hand were crushed, underlying bone was also crushed but there did not appear to be any injury on the skin. 16. After the above analysis of the medical evidence it is appropriate to consider the eye witness account of Kaushalya Devi and Madhu Bala and determine if these witnesses can be believed. The two witnesses had been present in their house and had heard a commotion when Pardeep Kumar was picked up and carried away by the accused to be taken to the haveli where he was severally beaten. The two witnesses were natural witnesses as they were present in the house at that time and the occurrence had taken place just outside their house. The witnesses had followed Pardeep Kumar and on reaching the haveli had seen injuries being inflicted on Pardeep Kumar. However, it appears to us that Pardeep Kumar may not have been physically carried or dragged or abducted by the accused. He may have been taken by them under some false pretext or ruse. The ‘witnesses do not say that Pardeep Kumar was injured before he was taken away or injured in the process of being carried to the haveli. Pardeep Kumar’s dead body had no injuries which may have been caused in the process of being dragged along the ground or in the process of being gagged by a piece of cloth. The analysis of the medical evidence given above does rule’ out Pardeep Kumar’s abduction from his house to the haveli but Kaushalya Devi and Madhu Bala cannot be disbelieved on this account. 17. The analysis of the medical evidence given above does rule’ out Pardeep Kumar’s abduction from his house to the haveli but Kaushalya Devi and Madhu Bala cannot be disbelieved on this account. 17. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant relating to the delay in lodging the report to the police has to be considered in the light of the circumstances of the case which required that the seriously injured Pardeep Kumar must first be taken to Hospital for treatment before his mother could even think of reporting the matter to the police. Dr. Inderjit Singh (PW -5) stated in cross-examination that he had observed the injuries and given treatment but no medical report was prepared because the patient was serious. No report of the case was sent to the police regarding the arrival of the patient. Report was sent only after the patient had died. From this it becomes apparent that the main anxiety of the family members as well as of the Medical Officer was to attend on the patient. Even intimation to the police regarding the arrival of Pardeep Kumar was not sent. None of the persons accompanying the grievously injured man went to the Police Station to lodge the report in the dead of the night. They may have expected that the report of the case would be sent to the Police Station in due course. Indeed the report was sent after Pardeep Kumar died at 2-30 A.M. and this brought the Investigating Officer to the Hospital to start the investigation by recording the statement of Kaushalya Devi. It was in these circumstances that the case came to be registered on the basis of Kaushalya Devils statement recorded at 7 A.M. The Special Report of the case was also delivered to the learned Judicial Magistrate promptly at 9.00 A.M. There was really no delay whatsoever in reporting the matter to the police. 18. The next point to be considered is the extent of corroboration of eye witness account from medical evidence. A close examination of the medical evidence shows that the deceased had six reddish contusions on the chest near the right nipple. The deceased had five reddish contusions on the back. The contusions on the chest described under injury 2 and contusions on the back described under injury 7 are of identical dimensions. The contusion described under injury 1 is a solitary one. The deceased had five reddish contusions on the back. The contusions on the chest described under injury 2 and contusions on the back described under injury 7 are of identical dimensions. The contusion described under injury 1 is a solitary one. However, this much is certain that injuries 2 and 7 were caused by the same weapon. Injury 1 may also have been caused by the same weapon. Injuries described at 3 and 4 are lacerated wounds on the legs, 2 and 5 in number, respectively. The dimensions of the five lacerated wounds described under injury 4 also appeared to be the same as the five contusions described under injuries 2 and 7. Therefore, injury 4 may also have been caused by the weapon which was used to inflict injuries 2 and 7. Injury 5 is a abrasion on the left elbow joint which was obviously the result of a fall. Injury 6 shows that two fingers of the left hand were crushed but there was no superficial injury on the skin. These injuries may not have been the result of a direct blow. Injury 3 also showed two lacerated wounds on the front of the upper part of the right leg. 19. We are of the opinion that the contusions were result of hammer blows while the lacerated wounds could or could not have been the result of hammer blows but these wounds were certainly not caused by weapon like a sua which is sharp and pointed although these could be blows of a hockey stick. According to Kaushalya Devi, in her statement to the police, Mohinder Pal had inflicted a sua blows 7/8 times but in her, statement before the court she made an improvement and stated that Mohinder Pal had inflicted sua blows using the sua like a dang. The witness was confronted with this improvement and she. admitted that sua had not stated in her police statement that stia blow had been given dangwise. Likewise Madhu Bala (PW- 3) had also made a similar improvement in her statement at the trial. From the above we are certain that no sua was used during the occurrence but the deceased had been repeatedly hit with a hammer and a hockey stick. Likewise Madhu Bala (PW- 3) had also made a similar improvement in her statement at the trial. From the above we are certain that no sua was used during the occurrence but the deceased had been repeatedly hit with a hammer and a hockey stick. Therefore, there was no medical corroboration regarding the participation of Mohinder Pal who was stated to have been armed with a sua but there was ample medical corroboration regarding Narinder Pal and Jawahar Lal who were armed with a hammer and a hockey stick, respectively. From the above we come to the conclusion that the prosecution version regarding the deceased having been abducted is not supported by the medical evidence and seems to be an exaggeration. The participation of Mohinder Pal has also been ruled out by medical evidence as there is no sua injury. The witnesses had made an obvious improvement which cannot be accepted. However, there is ample corroboration regarding the participation of Narinder Pal armed with a hammer and Jawahar Lal armed with a hockey stick. The eye witness account in respect of the parts played by these accused stand fully established and is amply corroborated by the medical evidence. 21. In view of the above we set aside the conviction of all the appellants under Section 364 I.P.C. and acquit them of this charge. The appeals of Narinder Pal and Jawahar Lal under Section 302 I.P.C. are dismissed but the appeal filed by Mohinder Pal is allowed and he is acquitted of the charges. Sentences imposed on Narinder Pal and Jawahar Lal under Section 302 I.P.C. are also maintained. Narinder Pal and Jawahar Lal are on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining part of their sentence.