ORDER Shrivastava, J. -- 1. Appellants have challenged their conviction and order of sentence passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.316/86 decided on 18.5.1995. 2. Appellant No.1 Paras ram has been convicted under section 302 of IPC, while the other appellants No.2 to 7 have been convicted under section 302/149 of IPC and each of them sentenced to imprisonment for life by the impugned judgment. 3. Appellant No.6 Ram Prasad died during the pendency of appeal. His appeal has, therefore, abated. 4. According to prosecution on 26.12.1985 at about 7:30 in the morning deceased Gopal Singh (hereinafter to be referred as deceased) had left his house at Village Para for Jabalpur alongwith his sons Munna Singh and Rajendra Singh on a motorcycle for attending the Court. Deceased Gopal Singh himself was driving the motorcycle, while his two sons were sitting on the rear seat. When they reached near Kirha Nala at Bargi Nagar Road at about 8 O'clock in the morning, they were interrupted by two bullock carts driven by appellant Shri Lodhi and one Fadali. At the same time appellants Parasram, Kimatlal, Rajkumar, Maan Singh, Ramji and Ram Prasad emerged there. Appellant Parasram was armed with spear and other appellants were armed with 'lathi'. On seeing the appellants, two sons of the deceased, namely, Munna Singh and Rajendra Singh got down from the motorcycle and deceased was also in the process of getting down that he was assaulted by appellant Paras ram by spear. Other appellants then dragged him towards the eastern side of the road. Appellant Parasram snatched the mouser (rifle) from the deceased, which he was holding on his shoulder. Munna Singh and Rajendra Singh, two sons of the deceased, tried to follow them, but the appellants intimidated them and threatened with death. Then they rushed from there and from the distance of 100 yards they noticed that appellants were hitting their father with stones and appellant Parasram fired at him from the gun, which he had snatched from their father and shot him dead. 5. Munna Singh and Rajendra Singh were deeply frightened and they somehow escaped from the scene and walked down to Jabalpur and reached at their house at Gupteshwar at about 9 O'clock in the night and narrated the incident to their brother Jagdish and Ramsingh. 5. Munna Singh and Rajendra Singh were deeply frightened and they somehow escaped from the scene and walked down to Jabalpur and reached at their house at Gupteshwar at about 9 O'clock in the night and narrated the incident to their brother Jagdish and Ramsingh. Then all of them went to Omti Police Control Room to seek the police assistance, as they also feared their lives and reached back to Bargi with police. Meanwhile, Kotwar of the village had given the merg intimation to the police whereupon police had reached the spot at Kirha Nala. The FIR of the incident in the form of Dehati Nalishi was recorded at the instance of Munna Singh. On the basis of Dehati Nalishi, an offence was registered against the appellants at Police Station, Bargi and was investigated. Merg inquest report was also prepared and the dead body of deceased Gopal Singh was sent for post-mortem examination. The police also seized the 315 bore rifle lying along the dead body with three cartridges and the empty cartridges and screw driver found on the spot. Blood stained earth and plain earth, blood stained stones as well as motorcycle of the deceased lying on the roadside were also seized by the police. On the arrest of the appellants, the spear and lathi used in the commission of offence were seized at the instance of appellant Parasram. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination. After due investigation, appellants were prosecuted under section 147, 148, 149,302 and 341 of lPC and were put to trial. 6. Appellants denied the various charges framed against them under section 147, 148, 302, alternatively under section 302/149 of IPC and pleaded false implication due to old enmity. 7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, acquitted the appellants of the charges under section 148 of IPC, but convicted appellant Paras ram under section 302 and other appellants under section 302/149 of IPC for committing murder of Gopal Singh and sentenced them as aforesaid. Hence, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 8. Arguments of both the sides were heard. Record of the lower Court perused. 9. The conviction of the appellants is founded mainly on the evidence of three eye-witnesses, namely, Munna Singh (PW5), Sukhlal Singh (PW6) and Shyam Singh Rajput (PW 11) coupled with other corroborative evidence. Hence, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 8. Arguments of both the sides were heard. Record of the lower Court perused. 9. The conviction of the appellants is founded mainly on the evidence of three eye-witnesses, namely, Munna Singh (PW5), Sukhlal Singh (PW6) and Shyam Singh Rajput (PW 11) coupled with other corroborative evidence. PW5 Munna Singh is the son of the deceased, PW6 Sukhlal is the brother-in-law of the deceased, while PW11 Shyam Singh Rajput is friend of the son of the deceased. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the testimony of related and partisan witnesses despite delayed FIR and inconsistent medical evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the so-called eye-witnesses had not actually witnessed the incident and being interested and partisan witnesses they have come forward as eye-witnesses of the incident of murder and falsely implicated the appellants due to enmity after deliberation and consultation. 11. We have carefully gone through the whole evidence on record. It is quite evident from the testimony of Dr. A.K. Yadu (PW 15), who conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased Gopal Singh on 27.12.1985, that deceased Gopal met a homicidal death. It is further evident from the testimony of Dr. A.K. Yadu (PW 15) that deceased Gopa1 Singh died as a result of firearm injuries. Dr. A.K. Yadu (PW15) had found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased: A. (1) Lacerated wound on left side of forehead situated at 9 cm above lateral 3rd left eye brow 10 cm above top of left ear stellate shaped, margin irregular, abraded, inverted and showed slight scratching seen, hair not singed, margin could not be approximated. Running across of fibers not seen. Size 4 cm x 2 cm x bone deep, no broken piece of bone embedded. (2) Lacerated wound 3 cm above the left eye brow on left side of forehead lateral part, transversely placed. 3 cm running across of fiber seen. (3) Lacerated wound 2 cm above 4 cm behind ear 1x1/2x1/2 cm. (4) Lacerated wound over left occipital region of head 5 x 3 x 3/4 cm, 5 cm left of midline. 9 cm behind left ear margins irregular, slightly averted, no scratching. 3 cm running across of fiber seen. (3) Lacerated wound 2 cm above 4 cm behind ear 1x1/2x1/2 cm. (4) Lacerated wound over left occipital region of head 5 x 3 x 3/4 cm, 5 cm left of midline. 9 cm behind left ear margins irregular, slightly averted, no scratching. (5) Lacerated wounds (small) present below injury No.4, 1 x 1/2 x 3/4 cm, margins irregular, small bone fragments embedded in them and projecting out. On reflection of scalp and dissecting the skull, scalp was separated from skull below and around injuries No.A and A4. Left frontal, left parietal, left temporal and occipital bones below were fragmented. Left parietal and left occipital bones below injury No.A and A4 showed absence of a fragment, irregular in shape. Left midline cranial fossa alongwith parieto-temporal bone was fragmented into several pieces. Left half of the brain was pulverized and showed multiple small bone fragments embedded into it. Minanges of brain were also pierced by several bone fragments. Direction of the wound - A antero-posterior and medially. I was entry wound, 4 was exit wound, both caused by firearm injury, 2,3,5 caused by bony fragments (no pellet or bullet was found within skull). B. Perforating wound present over left side of abdomen 33 cm away from midline and 33 cm below apex of axilla in midaxillary line, circular, having 2 cm, abraded margins, margins slightly inverted. Blackening, tattooing etc. not seen around wound, blood oozing from grease collar wound. On following this wound -- intestines have been perforated on multiple places. Abdominal vessels -- mesentric (superior and inferior) are form, right lobe of liver is pulverized, right lower 8 to 10th ribs and costal cartilages are fragmented, externally this is represented by an abraded area of 10x 10 cm, surrounded by a contused (raddish blue) once of 10x10 cm on right lateral chest wall and abdominal. A metallic piece and a small metallic fragment was obtained from the haematoma of the abdominal wall lateral to right lobe of liver. These metallic pieces appeared to be parts of bullet, were removed. There was a hole on banyan overlying the external abdominal wound. There was no exit wound on his body (Barring skull). Direction of abdominal wound was left to right, below upwards and slightly anteriorly. This injury B was caused by firearm, abdominal cavity contained 2-1/2 liters of blood mixed with clots. There was a hole on banyan overlying the external abdominal wound. There was no exit wound on his body (Barring skull). Direction of abdominal wound was left to right, below upwards and slightly anteriorly. This injury B was caused by firearm, abdominal cavity contained 2-1/2 liters of blood mixed with clots. C. (1) (Red) contusions two in numbers on left scapular region, 9 cm left of midline in mid-scapular region 2-1/2 x 1 cm & 2 x 1 cm size. (2) (red) abrasion just below the eye on face 2 x 2 cm size. (3) (red) contusion in front of the ear on face 2-1/2 x 1 cm size. (4) (red) contusion below right eye on face 6 x 3 cm. (5) (red) contusion on chest below left clavicle 10 x 8 cm. (6) (red) contusion on abdomen right side 7 x 4 cm right of midline. (7) Lacerated wound front of right forearm 13 cm above wrist, size 3-1/4 x 1/4 cm transversely placed. 12. In the opinion of Dr. AK. Yadu (PW15), injury A is entry wound of the firearm, injury A4 is exit wound of firearm and injury A2, 3, 5 caused by bony fragments resulting from explosion and running in velocity of freatured fragments. According to Dr. A.K. Yadu (PW 15) injury B was also caused by firearm. Injury C was caused by impact with hard, blunt and rough object like fall on such surface and the cause of death was craniocerebral injuries leading to cessation of vital functions. In the opinion of Dr. A.K. Yadu (PW 15), the injuries over head and abdomen were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and were homicidal. The post-mortem report (Ex.P-18) given and signed by Dr. AK. Yadu and his companion doctor is also placed on record. 13. There are no reasons to discard or disagree with the aforesaid medical evidence as given by Dr. A.K. Yadu (PW 15), which remained virtually unchallenged in cross-examination. 14. It is also borne out from the testimony of ASI Naresh Sharma (PW 17) that a 315 bore mouser (rifle) alongwith packet of three cartridges were found lying over the dead body of deceased, which was seized from the spot vide EX.P-4 and empty cartridges of 315 bore found on the spot were seized vide seizure memo EX.P-5. 14. It is also borne out from the testimony of ASI Naresh Sharma (PW 17) that a 315 bore mouser (rifle) alongwith packet of three cartridges were found lying over the dead body of deceased, which was seized from the spot vide EX.P-4 and empty cartridges of 315 bore found on the spot were seized vide seizure memo EX.P-5. It is also manifest from the report of ballistic expert (Ex.P-42) that the empty cartridges of 315 bore found on the spot were fired through the seized rifle of 315 bore. These facts also remained unchallenged in cross-examination. 15. Thus, it was clearly established that deceased Gopal Singh died as a result of firearm injuries caused on the vital parts of his body, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and his• death was homicidal in nature. 16. The next point to be examined is whether appellant No.1 Paras ram intentionally caused the death of the deceased by causing firearm injuries by means of a rifle ? 17. PW5 Munna Singh categorically deposed that on 26.12.1985 at about 7:30 in the morning, he was coming with his father Gopal Singh and brother Rajendra Singh on a motorcycle being driven by his father (deceased) to Jabalpur. His father was holding a gun, which was snatched by appellant Paras ram at the time of occurrence on the way near Kirha Nala and appellant Paras ram had also fired a shot at his father. This fact is also borne out from the evidence of another eye-witnesses, namely, Sukhlal (PW6) as well as from the evidence of PW 11 Shyam Singh Rajput that appellant Paras ram had fired at the deceased by rifle. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly submitted that the evidence of the aforesaid three so-called eye-witnesses is not reliable because they have not disclosed the incident or the name of the assailants or appellants to anyone at the earliest opportunity and the FIR was also delayed by 18 hours. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that PW5 Munna Singh admitted in his cross-examination that distance between Bargi and Jabalpur was only 30 kms. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that PW5 Munna Singh admitted in his cross-examination that distance between Bargi and Jabalpur was only 30 kms. and various modes of conveyance, like jeep, tempo and bus were available on route, but still he did not lodge any report earlier than 2:30 of the intervening night between 26th and 27th of December 1985, which was quite unnatural of an eyewitness and son of the deceased, which indicated that he was not present at the scene of occurrence and the names of the appellants were incorporated in the FIR after 18 hours due to enmity after deliberations. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, however, cannot be accepted in view of the facts that have come on record. PW5 Munna Singh clearly deposed that after the incident of attack and firing at his father, he and his brother had rushed to Jabalpur via Tahmar river and first they reached their house at Gupteshwar at about 9:30 in the evening. It has also come in his evidence that they were frightened and feared for their lives, therefore, they took another route and also crossed the river by boat. The explanation given by PW5 Munna Singh appears to be plausible and acceptable. It was not unnatural for the sons of the deceased, who were young lads at the time of occurrence, to have been frightened and scared for their lives by an incident of murder of their father by means of a gunshot before them and to have taken an indirect route in order to shield and hide themselves from any attack on themselves by the assailants. In fact, there are no reasons to doubt that PW5 Munna Singh was also accompanying his father on the motorcycle when the incident of murder took place. The mere fact that he lodged the report after first going to his house at Gupteshwar and informing other family members and then taking the help from Omti Police before going to Bargi Police Station, cannot dislodge the presence of PW5 Munna Singh on the scene of occurrence. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that PW5 claims to have gone to Omti Police Station and also narrated the incident, but no FIR was written at Police Station Omti, which also creates doubt on the delayed FIR (Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-8). 19. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that PW5 claims to have gone to Omti Police Station and also narrated the incident, but no FIR was written at Police Station Omti, which also creates doubt on the delayed FIR (Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-8). Again the mere casual narration of the incident at Police Station Omti control room in order to take police help or escort up to Bargi Police Station, and in that case, if the FIR was not jotted down at Police Station Omti Control Room, particularly when occurrence related to the jurisdiction of Bargi Police Station, cannot be a ground to view with suspicion the FIR (Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-8) lodged by PW5 Munna Singh at the spot when a satisfactory explanation from his evidence is also coming forth for the delay in lodging the FIR. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that even the evidence of PW 1 Gendalal, which reveals that PW5 Munna Singh and his brother were seen at Court premises, Jabalpur at 2 O'clock on the date of occurrence, also indicates that PW5 Munna Singh was not an eye-witness. Though, such a statement has been obtained in the cross-examination of PWI Gendalal, yet the so-called presence of PW5 Munna Singh or his brother at 2 O'clock at Court premises cannot dislodge their presence on the scene of occurrence at 8 O' clock in the morning. 21. Similarly, the fact that the names of the assailants were not mentioned in the merg intimation (Ex.P-3), which was also not written at the instance of PW5 Munna Singh, cannot create any doubt as to the presence of PW5 Munna on the scene of occurrence. Even otherwise, it is not necessary as a matter of law, as held by the apex Court in its three Judges Bench decision rendered in the case of Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Sahab and others v. State of U.P. in para 13 of the judgment reported in AIR 2006 SC, page 951 that the names of the accused or names of the eye-witnesses or the details of the FIR should be mentioned in the merg inquest report. 22. 22. Although, certain omission and contradictions with his previous statements were brought forth in the cross-examination of PW5 Munna Singh, but they are not such so as to create any doubt as to his presence at the time of occurrence or to disbelieve his statement that he was accompanying his father Gopal Singh (deceased) on his motorcycle on his way to Jabalpur when the incident occurred or to doubt or disbelieve his version that he had seen appellant No.1 Paras ram firing at his father. 23. The name of the appellant Parasram as a main assailant of the deceased by snatching his rifle and firing at the deceased also finds clear mention in the FIR lodged by PW5 Munna Singh, which also corroborates the basic version of PW5 Munna Singh that appellant Parasram had snatched the rifle from the deceased and also fired at him by the same rifle. 24. The evidence of PW6 Sukhlal and PW 11 Shyam Singh Rajput also lend support to the version of PW5 Munna Singh that appellant Paras ram had fired a shot at the deceased from the rifle. Although, it was submitted that looking to the unnatural conduct of these witnesses, as revealed from the facts coming to the surface from their cross-examination that they did not disclose the incident to anyone and did not report the matter to the police, they cannot be treated as eye-witnesses, but their evidence cannot be totally brushed aside on this count because PW6 Sukhlal has explained that he remained under the impression that the sons of the deceased might have lodged the FIR;and the tendency of the third persons like PW 11 Shyam Singh Rajput being detached in such matters cannot also be overlooked. Be that as it may, at least the evidence of PW5 Munna Singh that he had witnessed appellant Paras ram snatching the rifle from his father and firing at him cannot be disbelieved or viewed with suspicion. Though, it has come in the evidence that there was an old enmity between the deceased and Paras ram, but ordinarily it is not expected that PW5 Munna Singh would save the real assailant of his father and falsely implicate appellant Parasram. 25. Though, it has come in the evidence that there was an old enmity between the deceased and Paras ram, but ordinarily it is not expected that PW5 Munna Singh would save the real assailant of his father and falsely implicate appellant Parasram. 25. The citations referred to by learned counsel for the appellant& and reported in AIR 1974 SC page 284 (Ram Pukar Thakur and others v. The State of Bihar), AIR 1975 SC page 1026 (Ram Kumar Pande v. The State of Madhya Pradesh), AIR 1978 SC page 59 (Bir Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh), AIR 1973 SC page 343 (Rahim Beg and Mahadeo v. State of U.P.) and 1998(2) JLJ page 313 (Mantram and others v. State of M.P.), have turned on peculiar and different sets of facts of those cases and are of no avail in the facts of the instant case. 26. In fact, there are no cogent reasons to doubt or discard the evidence of PW5 Munna Singh that he was accompanying his father Gopal Singh (deceased) on his motorcycle at the time of incident and he had actually witnessed that appellant Paras ram had snatched the rifle held by the deceased and fired at the deceased by the same rifle, which also stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence besides the evidence of the other two eye-witnesses. 27. The evidence of PW5 Munna Singh cannot be rejected simply because his brother Rajendra Singh accompanying the deceased has not been examined. Similarly, his evidence cannot be rejected on the ground that he was closely related to the deceased, particularly when he happened to be present and accompanying the deceased on his motorcycle at the time of occurrence, while on way to Jabalpur. His clear and cogent evidence against appellant Paras ram, cannot be discarded merely on account of the delayed FIR. It is well settled, as observed by the apex Court in the case of Sahebrao v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2006 SC page 2002, that the delay in lodging the FIR by itself is no ground to doubt the prosecution case and discard it. 28. It was thus duly established that appellant No.1 Parasram had fired at the deceased by the rifle snatched from him and shot him dead. It is also manifest from the medical evidence as given by Dr. 28. It was thus duly established that appellant No.1 Parasram had fired at the deceased by the rifle snatched from him and shot him dead. It is also manifest from the medical evidence as given by Dr. A.K. Yadu (PW 15) that the deceased was shot on the vital parts of his body and the firearm injuries found on the head and abdominal region of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death, which were enough to hold that appellant Paras ram intentionally caused the death of Gopal Singh. 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court committed no error in finding appellant No.1 Paras ram guilty under section 302 of IPC for committing murder of Gopal Singh. 30. As regards the conviction of the other appellants, namely, Ramji, Kimatlal, Maan Singh, Raj Kumar, Ram Prasad and Shri Prasad under section 302/149 of IPC, that does not appear to be well founded. The evidence of three eye-witnesses, namely, Munna Singh (PW5), Sukhlal Singh (PW6) and Shyam Singh Rajput (PW 11) as against these appellants is also not consistent and coherent. PW5 Munna Singh deposed that the other appellants had hit the stones at the head of his father, while PW6 deposed about pelting of stones only by appellant Paras ram, Rajkumar, Kimatlal, Maansingh and Ramji and he did not name the other remaining two appellants. PW 11 Shyam Singh Rajput deposed that the other appellants were assaulting the deceased with kicks and fists. 31. It is also pertinent to point out that as per statement of PW 5 Munna Singh these appellants had assaulted the deceased with stones on his head, while there is no injury found on the head of the deceased as could be caused by hard, blunt and rough object like stone. On the A.K. Yadu (PW 15) were found to be firearm injuries. No weapon of offence like lathi or farsa was recovered from any of these appellants. PW7 Kanchhedi, who deposed that appellant Parasram and other appellants had boarded the bus from Kirha Nala, also did not know the names of the other appellants. He was also contradicted with his police statement (Ex.D-4) with regard to the boarding of other six appellants in the bus from Kirha Nala. 32. PW7 Kanchhedi, who deposed that appellant Parasram and other appellants had boarded the bus from Kirha Nala, also did not know the names of the other appellants. He was also contradicted with his police statement (Ex.D-4) with regard to the boarding of other six appellants in the bus from Kirha Nala. 32. In view of aforesaid inconsistent and infirm evidence, which remained clearly contradicted with the medical evidence, the presence of the appellants Ramji, Kimatlal, Maan Singh, Rajkumar, Ram Prasad and Shri Prasad as well as the role assigned to them appeared to be doubtful. In the wake of such infirmities, we entertain a reasonable doubt about the presence as well as involvement of these appellants in causing the death of the deceased Gopal Singh. As such appellants Ramji, Kimatlal, Maan Singh, Rajkumar and Shri Prasad are entitled to benefit of doubt and deserved to be acquitted. 33. Consequently, the conviction of the appellants Ramji, Kimatlal, Maan Singh, Raj Kumar and Shri Prasad under section 302/149 of IPC recorded by the trial Court and life sentence awarded to them are set aside and they are acquitted of charge. However, the conviction of appellant No.1 Parasram under section 302 of IPC with life sentence awarded to him is upheld. 34. Appellant No.1 Paras ram is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the remaining part of his sentence. 35. Appellant Kimatlal is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Other appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.