Judgment K. C. SHARMA. J. ( 1 ) THE above titled appeal by appellant Salim Khan arises out of the judgment and order dated 25-9-98 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Bandikui, district Dausa, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 3 months. ( 2 ) ON 19-3-92 PW-7 Sitya Ram lodged a written report, Ex. F4 at police station, todabheem alleging therein that on 15-3-92 appellant Saleem took away wood from the house of his brother Ram Khilari. On the next day i. e. on 16-3-92 some altercation took place in between his brother and accused Saleem Thereafter, at about 6-7 PM saleem called his brother and took him to his house, where Saleem, his wife Jabeena and mother Batto belaboured his brother with lathis and caused injuries on his head. The complainant then alleged that they took ram Khilari to the hospital at Jaipur for treatment In the course of treatment, Ram khilari passed away on 18-3 92 ( 3 ) ON the basis of aforesaid written report, the police registered a case for offence under Sections 302, IPC and Sec 3 SC/st act vide FIR Ex P. 5 and proceeded with the investigation. The police got conducted autopsy on the dead body and arrested the accused. On the information and at the instance of appellant, the police recovered a flail (Moosal ). ( 4 ) HAVING completed investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant in the court of learned Judicial magistrate, Mahuva. The learned Magistrate having found the offence exclusively triable by the court of session, committed the case to the Court of Session. The learned trial judge, on the basis of evidence and material on record framed the charge under Sec. 302, IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter the accused was examined under Section 313, Cr. The learned trial judge, on the basis of evidence and material on record framed the charge under Sec. 302, IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter the accused was examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. In his explanation, the appellant stated that in the night of 16-3-92 at 11 p. m. deceased Ram khilari was drunken and tried to outrage the modesty of his wife, whereupon his wife struck a flail (Moosal) blow on the deceased, which resulted in his death. The appellant further explained that he took the moosal in his hand with a view to save his wife from criminal action and out cried that he has killed the deceased. In his defence, the accused got examined DW-1 Bikram Singh, dw-2 Bahadur Singh, DW-3 Mst. Mubina and DW-4 Dr. Nand Lal Sharma. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant in the manner stated hereinabove. Hence this appeal we have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impunged judgment and the evidence and material on record. ( 5 ) IN assailing the conviction, the main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt against the appellant, beyond all reasonable doubts. He strenuously contended that there is inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the first information report. The incident alleged to have taken place on 16-3-92, whereas the matter was reported to the police on 19-3 92 i e after 3 days The explanation offered by the complainant as regards delay in lodging the FIR that he brought the deceased to jaipur for treatment appears to be highly improbable and deserves to be discarded. The incident alleged to have taken place on 16-3-92, whereas the matter was reported to the police on 19-3 92 i e after 3 days The explanation offered by the complainant as regards delay in lodging the FIR that he brought the deceased to jaipur for treatment appears to be highly improbable and deserves to be discarded. He submitted that even the doctor at Jaipur did not inform the police despite he being well informed by the complainant that deceased sustained injuries in an incident learned counsel then submitted that in fact the deceased in drunken state entered the house of the appellant with an ill intention and tried to outrage the modesty of his wife it was in that event that appellantss wife inflicted a flail blow in order to protect from outraging her modesty Learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including so called eye witnesses is highly inconsistent, they have contradicted with each other on material aspects of the matter and as such the learned trial Court has committed serious error in basing conviction on the basis of highly unreliable and untrustworthy evidence of witnesses Learned counsel argued that the learned trial Judge has committed grave error in not believing the defence All the witnesses adduced in defence have proved by their version that the wife of the accused, in order to protect from outraging her modesty, inflicted a Flail (Moosal) blow on the deceased when he, m drunken state tried to outrage her modesty Referring the medical evidence i e the injury reports Exs d7 and D8 of Mst Mubma and Batto, learned counsel submitted that in the course of scuffle wife and Mubma sustained injuries ( 6 ) PER contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have fully supported the findings arrived at by the learned trial court and have contended that the learned trial Judge has appreciated the prosecution evidence in true perspective and has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant and therefore, the impuged judgment deserves to be maintained ( 7 ) WE have considered the rival submissions to appreciate the rival submissions, we feel it appropriate to refer the relevant evidence so as to adjudge the truthfulness of the witnesses ( 8 ) PW 1 Mst Somoti an eye witness of the incident has deposed that on the day of incident, accused Saleem had called Ram khiladi and took him away on the pretext of some work She stated that some quarrel had taken place in between Ram Khiladi and saleem in regard to wood which Saleem had taken away She heard hue and cry from the house of Saleem after Saleem took her brother in law Ramkhiladi to his house Hav ing heard hue and cry, she climbed over the patod of one Somariya and found that quarrel was going on in between Saleem and ramkhiladi On being asked by Somanya to come down of his Patod she went to the house of accused Saleem where she saw saleem, struck Flail (Moosal) blows on the head and neck of Ramkhiladi, as a result of which Ramkhiladi fell down and she returned home raising hue and cry In cross examination, the witness stated that on the day of incident, Saleem took his brother in law with him at about 8 9 pm She then stated that Saleem struck a Moosal blow on ramkhiladi from a distance of one step Soon after infliction of Moosal blow, Ramkhiladi fell down and thereafter Saleem struck an other blow on his neck while he was lying on the ground She made it clear that on the day of incident Ramkhiladi did not con sume liquor ( 9 ) PW-2 Mst Angoori w/o deceased ramkhiladi has deposed that Saleem used to commit theft of wood from her house and on that account some altercation had taken place in between Saleem and her husband on the day of incident, accused Saleem called her husband and took him to his house At that time she and her sister were involved in cooking Having heard the hue and cry, she asked her sister PW-1 Somoti to see as to what was going on Her sister went there and returned weeping and informed that "ram KHILADI KO MAR DIYA mar DIYA Ramdhan, Sitya and Somoti brought her husband and thereafter he was taken to the Hospital at Khedla After treatment, the doctor at Khedla asked them to take the patient to Jaipur In cross-examination the witness stated that the fact as to the infliction of Moosal blow was informed by her sister, PW-1 Somoti She further stated that Somoti had informed about the infliction of Moosal blows on the head and neck of her husband ( 10 ) PW-3 Panchi, mother of the deceased and PW-7 Sitya, brother of the deceased have also stated that Saleem called ramkhiladi and took him to house Both the witnesses have stated some what similar to what PWs-1 and 2 have deposed PW-4 ghanshyam has also deposed that on hearing noise, he rushed to the house of Saleem, where sister in law of deceased Ram khiladi who was present there was stating that accused Saleem has murdered her brother-in-law by inflicting Moosal blow the witness stated that he himself had seen the injuries on the person of deceased ramkhiladi was lying in front of the house of Saleem and blood was oozing out from his head. ( 11 ) FROM what has been discussed above, it is abundantly clear that on the day of incident, in the evening, accused Saleem called the deceased from his house and took him to his house. All the three witnesses, namely PW-1 Somoti, PW-2 Angoori and pw-3 Panchi have corroborated this fact. It is also evident that a day prior to the incident, there was some altercation in between deceased and accused in respect of theft of wood having been committed by the accused in the house of deceased. As discussed above, PW-1 Somoti is the only eye-witness who has seen striking blows on the accused and immediately after the incident she narrated this fact to other witnesses and those witnesses have corroborated this fact. ( 12 ) THE medical evidence speaks of as many as 12 injuries on the person of deceased. Out of these 12 injuries, the injuries on brain and head were grievous and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. PW-16 Dr. Suman datta who conducted autopsy on the dead body has deposed that there were 12 injuries on the person of deceased. In his opinion, the cause of death was antemortem injuries to skull and brain which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature of death. In cross-examination, the doctor has stated that injury No 1 i. e. lesion 7 cm x 1 cm with sticr 6 cm long on anterior aspect of left mid fronto parietal region with scale formation could be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature He further stated that injury No. 7 i. e. defused swelling on right temporo parietal region was also sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. PW16 Dr. Suman Datta on dissection noticed sub-scalp haematoma on frontal aspect, on temporo parietal region over occipital region and sub-dural haematoma on both cerebral hemisphere. He also noticed fracture line on left orbital plate and multiple fractures of left temporal bone, left and right occipital bone. PW16 Dr. Suman Datta on dissection noticed sub-scalp haematoma on frontal aspect, on temporo parietal region over occipital region and sub-dural haematoma on both cerebral hemisphere. He also noticed fracture line on left orbital plate and multiple fractures of left temporal bone, left and right occipital bone. ( 13 ) THUS the manner in which the incident took place, where the accused took the deceased to his house and caused multiple injuries shows the intention of the accused that he intended to cause death of the deceased or atleast to cause such injury which was sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature to cause death ( 14 ) THE defence taken by the accused, in our considered opinion is highly unreliable, untrustworthy and cannot at all be believed. The accused in his explanation under Sec. 313, Crpc has come with the stand that deceased in drunken condition entered the house of the accused and tried to outrage modesty of his wife. In order to protect from outraging her modesty his wife inflicted a Moosal blow on the deceased. The accused with a view to save his wife from criminal action, took that Moosal in his hand and flashed the news that he caused the death of deceased. We are not prepared to accept this defence theory for various reasons. Firstly. the accused or his wife did not report to the police against the deceased about the alleged incident. Secondly, the incident occurred on 16-3-92, whereas the accused got done the medical of his wife and mother on 22-3-92 i. e after six days of the incident, at some other place and on his own request. That apart the injury reports ex D76 and D8 disclose only superficial injuries on the persons of wife and mother of the accused. Thirdly, PW-15 Prasan Kumar khamesara, Investigating Officer in his cross examination has deposed that immediately after the incident, he interrogated the wife and mother of the accused, but they did not disclose the incident of deceased having entered in their house in drunken condition and attempted to outrage modesty of wife of accused. Thirdly, PW-15 Prasan Kumar khamesara, Investigating Officer in his cross examination has deposed that immediately after the incident, he interrogated the wife and mother of the accused, but they did not disclose the incident of deceased having entered in their house in drunken condition and attempted to outrage modesty of wife of accused. That apart, Mubina wife of accused in her defence version has not stated anything as to how the accused attempted to outrage her modesty Had there been any incident as alleged by the accused, he would have certainly reported this matter to the police for which he had an ample opportunity Further, at the time of recording his plea the accused neither took this plea nor gave any suggestions to either pw-1 Somoti or PW-2 Mst. Angoori fourthly, the defence of the accused was that his wife struck a single blow by Moosal on the person of deceased, whereas, there were as many as 12 injuries on the person of deceased. Fifthly, there was no reason to get shifted criminal liability on his own shoulder. In our view there was no reason with the accused to have implicated himself in place of his wife inasmuch as whatever was done by his wife was done in order to protect from outraging her modesty, she did not commit any offence. Lastly, the accused should have narrated the true story to the persons present at the place of incident. ( 15 ) SO far as argument as regards delayed fir is concerned, suffice it to observe that complainant had no occasion to lodge the report immediately after the incident. The incident took place in the night. Soon after the incident, the complainant and other took the deceased to Khedla hospital where the doctor treated the deceased and referred him to Jaipur and the deceased was immediately taken to Jaipur. On 18-3-92 the deceased passed away and on the next day the complainant lodged the report. In these circumstances, the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same stands dismissed. We confirm the conviction and sentence awarded to appellant under Section 302, IPC. Appeal dismissed.