Judgment Nawab Singh, J. 1. This judgment would dispose of above titled two Criminal Appeals bearing Nos. 718-DB of 2001 and 1449-SB of 2001, as both these appeals relate to one occurrence. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 718-DB of 2001 has been filed by Satpaul alias Lala, Mewa Singh and Dhian Singh accused-appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated September 12, 2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the appellant(s) were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and if the amount of fine is recovered, it shall be paid to the next kin of the deceased as compensation. 3. Criminal Appeal No. 1449-SB of 2001 has been filed by Satpaul accused- appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated September 12, 2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby he was simultaneously convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The sentences, passed in both the cases, were directed to run concurrently. 4. On June 21, 1992 at 9 p.m. Dharshan Singh (deceased) and Harmesh Singh (PW-2), brother of the deceased, were present at their house situated at Village Bhattiwal Kalan, Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur. Satpaul (appellant No. 1) armed with a country made pistol, Mewa Singh (appellant No. 2) armed with a gun, entered the court-yard of the deceased. Mewa Singh, caught hold the deceased by his hairs. Satpaul fired a shot with his country made pistol hitting the left side of the head of Darshan Singh. He died on the spot. Dhian Singh (appellant No. 3) and Ajaib Singh, accused, who has since died, were standing outside the house having wrapped Chaddars around them. They declared that revenge had been taken of murder of Mohinder Singh, their friend. The electric bulb was on. The occurrence was witnessed by Harmesh Singh (PW-2). He died on the spot. Dhian Singh (appellant No. 3) and Ajaib Singh, accused, who has since died, were standing outside the house having wrapped Chaddars around them. They declared that revenge had been taken of murder of Mohinder Singh, their friend. The electric bulb was on. The occurrence was witnessed by Harmesh Singh (PW-2). All the accused then fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. 5. Darshan Singh and Harmesh Singh (PW-2) were the members of Punjab Paledar Union, Sangrur working at Bhawanigarh since last 8/9 years. About 2-1/2 years prior to the present occurrence, an occurrence had taken place between the Food Corporation of India Union (for short "the FCI") and Punjab Paledar Union, in which Mohinder Singh was murdered. Darshan Singh and his two other companions were challaned for committing the murder of Mohinder Singh. Darshan Singh was convicted and sentenced for causing the murder of Mohinder Singh. Said Darshan Singh was on bail at the time of his murder, regarding which, the present case was registered. He was murdered as act of revenge by the present accused-appellants. 6. Harmesh Singh (PW-2) did not proceed to the Police Station on the same night out of fear. Next day, that is, on June 22, 1992, Harmesh Singh (PW-2) along with Karnail Singh, Sarpanch, Bhattiwal Kalan proceeded to report the matter to the police. On the way, in the area of Retgarh, Gurmail Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Bhawanigarh (for short "ASI") (PW-9) met Harmesh Singh at about 8.30 a.m. Harmesh Singh made statement (Exhibit PD) and Gurmail Singh ASI (PW-9) appended his endorsement (Exhibit PD-1) on the statement of Harmesh Singh (Exhibit PD) and sent the same to Police Station Bhawanigarh, which led to the recording of First Information Report (for short "the FIR") (Exhibit PD-2) at 9.15 p.m. on June 22, 1992. 7. Gurmail Singh ASI (PW-9) reached the spot, prepared inquest report (Exhibit PC) and site plan of the place of occurrence (Exhibit PR). Blood stained earth was taken into possession vide seizure memorandum (Exhibit PG). Dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Sangrur for autopsy. After post-mortem examination, Naib Singh, Constable (PW-7) handed over the post-mortem report (Exhibit PA), which was taken into possession vide seizure memorandum (Exhibit PH). 8. Blood stained earth was taken into possession vide seizure memorandum (Exhibit PG). Dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Sangrur for autopsy. After post-mortem examination, Naib Singh, Constable (PW-7) handed over the post-mortem report (Exhibit PA), which was taken into possession vide seizure memorandum (Exhibit PH). 8. On July 7, 1992, Gurmail Singh ASI (PW-9) along with other police officials was present at Bus Stand, Gharachon where Jeet Singh and Sukhdev Singh PWs produced Satpaul, Mewa Singh and Ajaib Singh accused. They were arrested. On July 12, 1992, all the accused were interrogated by the Investigator. On interrogation, Satpaul made a disclosure statement (Exhibit PV) that after causing the murder of Darshan Singh, he had kept concealed his country made pistol along with two live cartridges after wrapping them in a glazed paper in a box at his house situated in village Bhattiwal Kalan, and could get the same recovered. Mewa Singh and Ajaib Singh accused, in their disclosure statements (Exhibits PK and PL) respectively, disclosed that each of them had kept concealed their licensed DBBL guns of .12 bore, 5 live cartridges, 6 live cartridges and arms licenses respectively in the office of Paledar Union in an almirah at Bhawanigarh and could get the same recovered. 9. In pursuance of their disclosure statements, the accused got recovered the weapons. The pistol (Exhibit P-9), the cartridges (Exhibits P-10/1 and P-10/2) recovered at the instance of Satpaul, the gun (Exhibit P-3), the cartridges (Exhibits P-4/1 to P-4/5) and licence (Exhibit P-8) recovered at the instance of Mewa Singh accused and the gun (Exhibit P-5), cartridges (Exhibits P-6/1 to P-6/6) and licence (Exhibit P-7) recovered at the instance of Ajaib Singh accused were taken into possession vide seizure memorandums (Exhibits PQ, PM and PN respectively). The articles viz., the blood-stained earth and the underwear of the deceased were sent to the Chemical Examiner, Patiala, Punjab for analysis. After completion of investigation and other formalities, the accused were arraigned for trial. 10. Charge, in respect of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the accused. Satpaul alias Lala accused appellant was separately charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 11. In support of its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses in all viz. Dr. Satpaul alias Lala accused appellant was separately charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 11. In support of its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses in all viz. Dr. K.C. Goel (PW-1), Harmesh Singh (PW-2), Haridev Singh (PW-3), Sita Ram Complaint Clerk (PW-4), Mukhtiar Singh ASI (PW-5), Ram Singh Constable (PW-6), Naib Singh Constable (PW-7), Darshan Singh Patwari (PW-8), Gurmail Singh SI (PW-9) and Harinderpal Singh SI (PW-10). 12. In their examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") the accused denied the allegations and pleaded that they were implicated falsely. Ram Singh DW-1, Jeet Singh DW-2; Navdeep DW-3; Ram Singh HC DW-4 and Hare Ram Constable DW-5 were examined in the defence. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there was inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. The occurrence took place on June 21, 1992 at 9.16 a.m., whereas the FIR was recorded on June 22, 1992 at 9.15 a.m., that too, after the arrival of the members of the family and 80/85 persons of the Union, which shows that it was recorded after consultations and confabulation, which robs the FIR of spontaneity and renders the case to be doubtful. It was further argued that Harmesh Singh (PW-2) did not witness the occurrence. Had he really been the eye witness, question of his not raising alarm or informing the police immediately did not arise. Harmesh Singh (PW-2) was introduced later falsely as eye-witness. It was also argued that Haridev Singh (PW-3) did not witness the occurrence, because per the prosecution case, he reached the spot after 5/7 minutes of the occurrence. Lastly, it was argued that the alleged pistol recovered at the instance of Satpaul appellant was not sent to FSL to determine whether the shot was fired from the said pistol or not. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that the prosecution has successfully proved their case by examining Harmesh Singh (PW-2) and Haridev Singh (PW-3). Statement of Harmesh Singh (PW-2) is in consonance with the medical evidence contained in the statement of Dr. K.C. Goel (PW-1). 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that the prosecution has successfully proved their case by examining Harmesh Singh (PW-2) and Haridev Singh (PW-3). Statement of Harmesh Singh (PW-2) is in consonance with the medical evidence contained in the statement of Dr. K.C. Goel (PW-1). Statement of Gurmit Singh, Investigator further proves that weapon of offence, that is, pistol (Exhibit P-9) used in the commission of offence, was got recovered by Satpaul accused in pursuance of hid disclosure statement. Had the murder been not committed by Satpal accused, question of his making disclosure statement (Exhibit PV) and then getting the pistol (Exhibit P-9) recovered, would not have arisen. It was urged that the motive on the part of the accused to kill Darshan Singh has also been proved because Darshan Singh had murdered Mohinder Singh, a member of FCI Union. 15. The evidence on record, material circumstances of the case and the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State have been appraised. 16. The attack on the prosecution case on the ground of delay in lodging FIR is more or less a stereotyped redundancy in criminal cases. It is a recurring feature in most of the criminal cases that there would be some delay in furnishing first information to the police. The law has not fixed any time for lodging the FIR. Hence, a delayed FIR is not illegal. Of course, a prompt and immediate lodging of the FIR is the ideal as that would give the prosecution a twin advantage. First is that it affords commencement of the investigation without any time lapse. Second is that it eliminates the probability of a concoction or false version being introduced. Barring these two plus points for a promptly lodged FIR, the demerits of the delayed FIR cannot operate as fatal to any prosecution case. It cannot be overlooked that even a promptly lodged FIR is not a complete guarantee for the genuineness of the version incorporated therein. 17. When there is criticism on the ground that FIR in a case was delayed, the Court has to look at the reason why there was such a delay. There can be a variety of genuine causes for delay in FIR. In this case, the occurrence took place at 9 p.m. On June 21, 1992 in a village. 17. When there is criticism on the ground that FIR in a case was delayed, the Court has to look at the reason why there was such a delay. There can be a variety of genuine causes for delay in FIR. In this case, the occurrence took place at 9 p.m. On June 21, 1992 in a village. The explanation given by Harmesh Singh (PW-2) of not immediately going to the police station was that out of fear he could not dare to leave the village to go to the police station. It was quite natural. It was dark. Accused were armed with fire arms. There was old enmity. They could waylay Harmesh Singh (PW-2). Very next morning, he proceeded to inform the police. Police Station was at a distance of 4-1/2 miles, that is, near about 7 kilometers. Police met him and he made statement, which ended at 8.30 a.m., on the basis of which, the FIR was recorded at 9.15 a.m. on June 22, 1992. It is quite common that kith and kin of the deceased always take some time to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind before moving to the police for the purpose of furnishing the requisite information. Honble Supreme Court in Tara Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1991(2) RCR(Criminal) 622 : AIR 1991 Supreme Court 63 made the following observations : "It is well settled that the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times being grief- stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go to the police station for giving the report." 18. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court holds that whatever delay in lodging the FIR was there has been explained and cannot prove fatal for the prosecution case. 19. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go to the police station for giving the report." 18. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court holds that whatever delay in lodging the FIR was there has been explained and cannot prove fatal for the prosecution case. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the evidence of Harmesh Singh (PW-2) raising contention that the witness is the brother of the deceased and was, therefore, highly interested witness and his statement be discarded. 20. Harmesh Singh (PW-2) has deposed that on June 22, 1992 at about 9 p.m. he along with his brother Darshan Singh deceased was present in the Court-yard of his house. They came from the field after planting paddy. Mewa Singh (appellant No. 2) caught hold of Darshan Singh (since deceased) by hairs and Satpaul (appellant No. 1) fired a shot from pistol and as a result thereof, Darshan Singh died on the spot. Dhian Singh and Ajaib Singh (since dead) accused were standing outside the house. Accused, while fleeing from the spot, declared that they had taken the revenge for murder of Mohinder Singh by Darshan Singh. It was stated by him that Darshan Singh was charged for causing murder of Mohinder Singh, who was a member of FCI Union and was undergoing the imprisonment. He was on bail when the accused murdered him. Presence of Harmesh Singh (PW-2) at his house at the time of the alleged occurrence was natural. No material discrepancy whatsoever could be pointed out in his statement, which could make a dent in the story of the prosecution. His evidence is not to be discarded on the short ground that he is brother of the deceased. His evidence is reliable, unshaken, cogent and consistent with the case of the prosecution. His testimony also coincides with the medical evidence as described by Dr. K.C. Goel (PW-1), who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Darshan Singh and found lacerated wound with irregular margins on the left side of scalp, oval in shape 6 cm x 5 cm, just above the left pinna, corresponding hole and skull was fractured into pieces. The base of skull was fractured into pieces. Brain matter was lacerated and cavity was full of blood mixed with CSF fluid. Blood fluid was coming out of the nostrils and ears. The base of skull was fractured into pieces. Brain matter was lacerated and cavity was full of blood mixed with CSF fluid. Blood fluid was coming out of the nostrils and ears. It was opined by the Medical Officer that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury No. 1, which was, ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Harmesh Singh (PW-2), being the brother of the deceased, would be last person to let the real culprits scot free and arraign an innocent person. There is ample authority for the proposition that near relations of the murdered person are not to be suspected in respect of their testimony because of their relationship. The testimony of Harmesh Singh (PW-2) is without any blemish or material discrepancy or flaw and inspires all the confidence. It clinchingly proves that Satpaul alia Lala accused-appellant No. 1 fired a shot from pistol in the head of Darshan Singh, while deceased Darshan Singh had been caught hold of by his hairs by Mewa Singh and accused appellant No. 1. 21. So far as the statement of Hardev Singh (PW-3) is concerned, he appeared at the scene of occurrence later on. It is the case of the prosecution itself that he did not witness the occurrence. It is there in his statement that he stayed at the spot for 5/7 minutes and then left. He belongs to village Aalo Arkh, which is situated at a distance of 10/15 kms from village Bhatiwal, where the occurrence had taken place. He stayed in the village on the said night. He left the village at 5 a.m. to go to his village. He was called by the police at Police Post Gharachon. He asked the Constable as to why he was being called by the police. The constable told him that his statement was to be recorded. Harmesh Singh (PW-2) has deposed that Haridev Singh (PW-3) reached the spot within 2/3 minutes of the occurrence and went away after 2/3 minutes. He (Haridev Singh) did not talk to him at all nor he (Harmesh Singh) asked him to inform any person of the village. His name did not figure in the statement (Exhibit PD). Per Harmesh Singh (PW-2), he met Haridev Singh after 2/3 days of the occurrence when he told him that he had come from village Bhawanigarh. He (Haridev Singh) did not talk to him at all nor he (Harmesh Singh) asked him to inform any person of the village. His name did not figure in the statement (Exhibit PD). Per Harmesh Singh (PW-2), he met Haridev Singh after 2/3 days of the occurrence when he told him that he had come from village Bhawanigarh. Even if, it is assumed that Haridev Singh (PW-3) had not reached the spot after few minutes of the occurrence, it cannot destroy the ocular account given by Harmesh Singh (PW-2), which is free from any blemish and which is corroborated by medical evidence. 22. It is the case of Harmesh Singh (PW-2) that Mewa Singh (appellant No. 2) caught hold of his brother by the hairs and Satpaul (appellant No. 2) fired a shot, which hit on the left side of the head of Darshan Singh, whereas Dhian Singh (appellant No. 3) and Ajaib Singh accused were standing at the door of the house. It was further stated by him that while fleeing from the spot, the accused raised a Lalkara that they had taken the revenge for murder of Mohinder Singh. In cross-examination, it has been stated by him that no Lalkara was raised by the accused. Ajaib Singh and Dhian Singh were not having any weapon. No overt act has been attributed to Dhian Singh accused by Harmesh Singh (PW-2). This being so, the question arises as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that Dhian Singh (appellant No. 3)s presence near the gate proves that the act, that is, causing of the murder of Darshan Singh was in furtherance of the common intention of Dhian Singh (appellant No. 3) or not ? The answer is in negative. It would be useful to refer to a judgment delivered by a Full Bench of Honble Supreme Court of India in Suresh and another v. State of U.P., 2001(2) Recent Criminal Reports 78 (SC). In that case, three accused viz. Suresh, Ramji and Pavitri Devi were charge-sheeted for causing five murders. The trial Court imposed death penalty on Suresh and Ramji. Pavitri Devi was convicted under Section 302 with the said of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The occurrence had taken place while the victims were sleeping on terrestrial tarrain. In that case, three accused viz. Suresh, Ramji and Pavitri Devi were charge-sheeted for causing five murders. The trial Court imposed death penalty on Suresh and Ramji. Pavitri Devi was convicted under Section 302 with the said of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The occurrence had taken place while the victims were sleeping on terrestrial tarrain. Suresh and Ramji caused injuries to the five victims whereas Pavtri Devi kept standing on the road when the incident occurred. The question before their Lordships was whether Pavitri Devi could be held guilty for causing the occurrence under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code or not ? It was answered that she could not be. It was observed that an act, whether overt or covert, is indispensable to be done by a person, even if he has some intention with the others for the accomplishment of the crime. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked for convicting that person. In other words, the accused who only shares the common intention in his mind, but does not do any act at the scene, cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus participation in the crime in furtherance of the common intention is sine qua non for Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further observed therein that it is difficult to conclude that a person, merely because he was present at or near the scene, without doing anything more, without even carrying a weapon and without even marching along with the other assailants, could also be convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 23. In view of the law laid down in the authority supra and the evidence discussed, this Court is unable to accept that Dhian Singh (appellant No. 3) had shared common intention in causing the murder of Darshan Singh. 24. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the pistol recovered at the instance of Satpaul (appellant No. 1) was not sent to the FSL, which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. 24. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the pistol recovered at the instance of Satpaul (appellant No. 1) was not sent to the FSL, which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. If weapon of offence, that is, the pistol in this case was sent for examination to the FSL along with the bullets, a report regarding the bullet being fired from this pistol would have been another very strong piece of evidence. If on the other hand, the pistol or bullet were not sent to the FSL and not got examined, the only consequence would be, that the aforesaid piece of evidence shall not be available to the prosecution. The other evidence cannot be destroyed by non- examination of the fire arm used or bullet etc. The other evidence is to be evaluated on the strength of its intrinsic worth. After all, the court also decide the cases where fire arms are not used. Some other weapons are used for commission of the crime of murder etc. In those cases, the report of FSL would simply not be there. In the instant case, the weapon was not sent and the report of FSL is not there. But other evidence is there, which could not be assailed on any sustainable ground. The argument advanced in this context on behalf of the appellants is rather wide off the mark. 25. Satpaul appellant has also challenged the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby he was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. It has been proved by the prosecution that the appellant, on interrogation, in case State v. Sat Paul etc. under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC made a disclosure statement (Exhibit PV) that he had kept concealed country made pistol along with two live cartridges after wrapping them in a glazed paper in a box at his house. To prove the same, the prosecution examined Mukhtiar Singh ASI, Gurmail Singh SI and Gurdev Singh Constable as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. From their statements, it is amply proved that the country made pistol was kept by Satpaul in the almirah of his house and was got recovered by him, for which he had no licence. To prove the same, the prosecution examined Mukhtiar Singh ASI, Gurmail Singh SI and Gurdev Singh Constable as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. From their statements, it is amply proved that the country made pistol was kept by Satpaul in the almirah of his house and was got recovered by him, for which he had no licence. No meaningful argument could be advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to assail the judgment of learned Trial Judge. Accordingly, the conviction of said accused-appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act is well reasoned and based upon unblemished evidence. 26. For the reasons aforesaid, Criminal Appeal No. 718-DB of 2001, so far as Dhian Singh accused-appellant is accepted. Judgment of his conviction and sentence is set aside. Dhian Singh accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge and he set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 27. Criminal Appeal No. 718-DB of 2001 preferred by Satpaul alias Lala and Mewa Singh accused-appellants is without merit and is dismissed. 28. Criminal Appeal No. 1449-SB of 2001 filed by Satpaul alias Lala accused- appellant is also dismissed.