PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against judgment and order dated 31/1/1989 passed in Sessions Trial No. 256 of 1986 by learned IVth Additional district and Sessions Judge, Nainital, whereby he has convicted appellant No. 1 Dungar Singh under Section 302 of indian Penal Code, and appellant No. 2 bhawan Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the said Code, and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 with further direction that in default of payment of fine, the defaulter has to undergo further six months imprisonment ( 2 ) PROSECUTION story, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 16th and 17th of July, 1986, a local festival 'harela' was being celebrated in the temple of gorakhnath in Village Kaunta. At about 11:00 p. m. in the house of Puran singh, appellants Dungar Singh and bhawan Singh had a quarrel with deceased Madho Singh and they gave threat to him that they would finish him of. After this, at about 01:00 a. m. when madho Singh was attending the festival in the temple, appellants came there with common intention. Appellant No. 2 bhawan Singh handed over sharp-edged knife in the hand of appellant No. 1 dungar Singh. And appellant No. 1 dungar Singh stabbed with knife in the abdomen of Madho Singh (deceased ). The incident was witnessed by PW1 Kundan singh, PW2 Uttam Singh, PW3 Pratap singh and others. At the time of the incident, inside and outside the temple, there was light of Dhooni (wood fire ). Soon after the incident, injured Madho Singh was taken in the nearby house of Puran singh, where a cloth was rapped over his abdomen. In the next morning, he was taken to Jeetpur on way to Haldwani for medical treatment. While he was being taken from Jeetpur, it was raining. The injured was got admitted at 4:00 p. m. in a hospital at Haldwani, whereafter First information Report (Ex. Ka 1) was got prepared and given at Police Station, haldwani on 17/7/1986 at 18:40 hours. While he was being taken from Jeetpur, it was raining. The injured was got admitted at 4:00 p. m. in a hospital at Haldwani, whereafter First information Report (Ex. Ka 1) was got prepared and given at Police Station, haldwani on 17/7/1986 at 18:40 hours. Initially, the said report was registered at Police Station, Haldwani against the appellants under Section 324 of the indian Penal Code, but since it related to an incident which had taken place outside the limits of Police Station Haldwani, the report was sent to Supervisory kanungo, Chawgad for registering the crime and its investigation (In Uttaranchal hills, certain Revenue Officers are given police powers ). Meanwhile, injured madho Singh succumbed to the injuries on 18/7/1986. The post-mortem examination on the dead body was conducted on 18/7/1986 at about 02:35 p. m. by Dr. S. C. Pant (PW4), who recorded following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:i. Stitched wound over right para median area 12 cm. long horizontal 3 cm. lateral to Umbilicus, ii. Stitched wound 2. 5 cm. horizontal 3 cm. lateral to injury no. 1. Rubber drain present, iii. Stitched wound 1. 5 cm. traverse 2 cm. below injury No. 1. Rubber drain present. ( 3 ) THE Medical Officer prepared the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. Ka 3) and also observed following points regarding the condition of the abdomen:i. Haematoma over mesentery, ii. Pus plagues over peritoneum. iii. Cavity was filled with pus and peritoneal fluids. ( 4 ) CAUSE of the death, according to the Medical Officer, was found to be "shock and Peritonitis". During the investigation, the crime was converted into one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After recording the statements of witnesses and investigation, charge-sheet (Ex. Ka 7) was filed by Investigating Officer PW6 Narayan Singh negi (Supervisory Kanungo) against both the accused appellants. ( 5 ) ON receiving the charge-sheet (Ex. Ka 7), the same was registered by learned Magistrate on 20. 10. 1986. After giving necessary copies under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to the accused persons, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Magistrate. Thereafter, learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the prosecution and the accused persons, framed charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code against accused Dungar Singh, and under Section 302 read with Section 34 against accused Bhawan Singh. Thereafter, learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the prosecution and the accused persons, framed charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code against accused Dungar Singh, and under Section 302 read with Section 34 against accused Bhawan Singh. Both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 6 ) PROSECUTION got examined before the Trial Court PW1 Kundan Singh (Informant); PW2 Uttam Singh (Eye-witness); PW3 Pratap Singh (another Eye witness); PW4 Dr. S. C. Pant, who conducted the post-mortem examination; pw5 Dr. R. P. Pandey of Civil Hospital, who recorded the injuries at the time the injured was admitted in the hospital; PW6 narayan Singh Negi, the Investigating officer and PW7 Constable Tara Dutt, who recorded the Check Report (Ex. Ka 8) of the First Information Report at Police Station, Haldwani. ( 7 ) THE evidence was put under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to both the accused persons by the Trial Court and they were given opportunity to adduce the evidence in defence. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court found accused dungar Singh guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal code, and accused Bhawan Singh guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the said Code. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court heard the accused persons and the prosecution on the point of sentence, and sentenced each of the convicts to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-with further direction that in default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall undergo further period of six months' rigorous imprisonment. Against said judgment and order dated 31. 01. 1989, this appeal has been preferred by the convicts. ( 8 ) WE heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor / Government Advocate and perused the record. ( 9 ) BEFORE further discussion, it is pertinent to mention here that at the time of admitting the deceased in an injured condition in Civil Hospital, haldwani, following injuries were found on his person, which were recorded in Ex. Ka 4 by PW5 Dr. R. P. Pandey:"stabbed Wound of 2. 5 cm x 1. 5 cm x Cavity Deep on the right side of abdomen 6 cm right to umbilicus with clear margin and oozing present, stop guarding on the abdomen present. "according to PW5 Dr. Ka 4 by PW5 Dr. R. P. Pandey:"stabbed Wound of 2. 5 cm x 1. 5 cm x Cavity Deep on the right side of abdomen 6 cm right to umbilicus with clear margin and oozing present, stop guarding on the abdomen present. "according to PW5 Dr. R. P. Pandey, the injuries were one day old and kept under observation. This examination was recorded on 17. 07. 1986 at 04:15 p. m. ( 10 ) PW1 Kundan Singh, the informant, is also an eye-witness. He has stated that there was a local festival of 'harela' in the temple of Guru gorakhnath in Village Kaunta on the night of the incident. At about 1:00 a. m. on 16. 07. 1986, according to this witness, appellant Dungar Singh and appellant bhawan Singh entered in the premises of the temple. Appellant Bhawan Singh handed over knife to appellant Dungar singh, who stabbed in the abdomen of madho Singh. PW1 Kundan Singh, further, states that the incident was witnessed by another witness Kundan Singh s/o Dharam Singh, Uttam Singh S/o Trilok Singh and others. This witness has made it clear that at the time of incident, there was light of Dhooni (wood fire) inside and outside the temple. The witness, further, states that injured madho Singh, after the incident, was immediately taken to the nearby house of Puran Singh, where a cloth was rapped over his abdomen and he was made to lay on a cot. PW1 Kundan Singh further narrates that in the next morning, i. e. on 17. 07. 1986, injured was taken on the cot on foot up to Jeetpur. From there, it started raining. However the witness and others reached with the injured at about 4:00 p. m. in the hospital at Haldwani. PW1 kundan Singh states that thereafter he got prepared the First Information Report (Ex. Ka 1) and submitted it at the Police station, Haldwani. He further states that he also took with him the Medical Report, obtained from the Civil Hospital, haldwani. The witness, further, narrates that, however, Madho Singh succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on 18. 07. 1986. This witness has stated that the Inquest Report (Ex. Ka 2) of the dead body was prepared before him. ( 11 ) THE above statement of PW1 kundan Singh gets full corroboration from the statement of another eyewitness pw2 Uttam Singh and PW3 Pratap Singh. 07. 1986. This witness has stated that the Inquest Report (Ex. Ka 2) of the dead body was prepared before him. ( 11 ) THE above statement of PW1 kundan Singh gets full corroboration from the statement of another eyewitness pw2 Uttam Singh and PW3 Pratap Singh. PW2 Uttam Singh has further made it clear that before the injury was caused at 1:00 a. m. , appellants Dungar Singh and Bhawan Singh had a quarrel at about 11:00 p. m. with Madho Singh in the house of Puran Singh. PW3 Pratap Singh has also narrated both the incidents he witnessed in the house of Puran Singh and thereafter, the incident, which followed in the temple at 1:00 a. m. There is no reason to disbelieve the natural and trustworthy statement of these eyewitnesses, who do not appear to be inimical either to appellant Bhawan Singh or to the appellant Dungar Singh. The eyewitness account of these three witnesses also gets corroboration from the injuries found on the person of Madho Singh by dr. R. P. Pandey on 17. 07. 1986, when the injured was admitted in the hospital and also from the anti-mortem injuries recorded in Post Mortem Report (Ex. Ka 3)by PW4 Dr. S. C. Pant. The cause of death mentioned in the Post-Mortem Report read with Injury Report (Ex. Ka 4) leaves no doubt as to the causing of the injury by sharp-edged weapon on the abdomen of deceased Madho Singh. ( 12 ) ON behalf of the appellants, it is argued that the First Information Report is a delayed one and the appellants were falsely implicated. On perusal of the First information Report, itself, it is very clear that there is not only sufficient but reasonable explanation, which can be accepted regarding the delay in lodging the first Information Report. The first duty of the Informant and other witnesses was to see that the injured gets the medical aid at the earliest so that his life may be saved. This Court cannot forget that the incident has taken place in a Village of a hill district after midnight, where there was no means to take the injured to nearby hospital PW1 Kundan Singh, informant has done the best he could do as narrated by him. It is only after he got the injured admitted in the hospital on next day, he could lodge the First Information Report. It is only after he got the injured admitted in the hospital on next day, he could lodge the First Information Report. ( 13 ) SECOND point raised before this court by Mr. Nanak Chand Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, is that appellant No. 2 Bhawan Singh is minor and the matter should be referred to the Juvenile Board. From the evidence on record, this appears to be a totally afterthought and against the evidence on record. Nowhere before the Trial Court this plea was taken. Apart from this, from the evidence of the witnesses it is clear on the record that appellant No. 2 Bhawan singh before the date of incident, was in the service of the Forest Department as a daily-wage worker. As such, we cannot accept nor is it believable that a minor was in Government Service. ( 14 ) THE next argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is this that there was no motive shown by the prosecution as to the commission of crime by the appellants. In our opinion, this argument is also misconceived. Where there is clear eyewitness account of the commission of crime, it is not necessary to prove the motive. Here, as many as three eyewitnesses have given a natural and detailed eyewitness account of the incident and in such a case, requirement of proving the motive is not necessary. Apart from this, PW2 Uttam Singh and PW3 pratap Singh have stated on oath that at about 11:00 p. m. the appellants had a quarrel with Madho Singh (deceased) who gave him a threat that they would finish him of. As such, otherwise also, there is no force in the above argument. ( 15 ) MR. Nanak Chand Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that in the charge, intervening night is shown to be that of 15th / 16th of July, 1986, while according to witnesses, it was 16th / 17th of July, 1986. In our opinion, the said error appears to be clerical one and it has not misled the accused persons in their defence. We cannot forget that copies of the First Information Report and statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer were given to the accused persons and they knew that what is the alleged date of incident. In our opinion, the said error appears to be clerical one and it has not misled the accused persons in their defence. We cannot forget that copies of the First Information Report and statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer were given to the accused persons and they knew that what is the alleged date of incident. Unless error in the charge has caused failure of justice or at least misled the accused persons in their defence, it is not just and proper to set aside the conviction. ( 16 ) LAST submission on behalf of the appellants made by their learned counsel is that the offence was initially registered under Section 324 of the Indian penal Code and had the medical treatment been given to the injured at the earliest, the life could have been saved. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that, at the most, it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 of indian Penal Code, 1860, and not that of 'murder' punishable under Section 302 of the said Code. Considering the nature of injury and that the same was caused by a deadly weapon on the vital part of the deceased, who succumbed to injuries, the submission of learned counsel, that it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, cannot be accepted. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, for the reasons as discussed above, we do not find any force in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. The appellants shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 31/1/1989 in Sessions Trial No. 256 of 1986. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .