JUDGMENT H.S. Bhalla, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.9.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which he convicted appellant Gurcharan Singh @ Happy son of Swaranjit Singh resident of village Chugewala under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. However, appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code framed against him. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under: Deceased Yadwinder Singh @ Rana was running a finance company at Talwandi Bhai and had been residing with his father Jarnail Singh, complainant (PW-1), in Rose Avenue, Ferozepur. The appellant-accused was apprehending that the deceased had illicit relations with his wife and on that count, he was nourishing a grudge against him. On 9.1.2002 at about 6.00 P.M. Jarnail Singh, the complainant, along with Gurpreet Singh (PW-2), brother of his wife, came out of his house for strolling. When they reached near the shops of Malhotra Store, they found that the deceased and the accused were present in front of the shop of Vicky Hair Style and the accused was holding a toka in his hand. He gave a blow with the same on the head of the deceased. At this, he entered the shop of said Vicky hair dresser and fell down. The appellant followed him and after taking out a kirch (dagger) from the right side “dub” of his trousers, gave four blow continuously on the chest of the deceased. Another blow was inflicted on the right side of his face. The complainant raised an alarm upon which the accused dishonestly removed the pistol and arm licence from the person of the deceased and escaped from that place in a motor car of white colour, which was lying parked at that place. When both of them entered the shop of the hair dresser, they found the deceased to be unconscious. After arranging for a vehicle, they removed him to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, where he was declared dead by the doctor. When both of them entered the shop of the hair dresser, they found the deceased to be unconscious. After arranging for a vehicle, they removed him to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, where he was declared dead by the doctor. On receiving a message regarding the death of the deceased at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, the police machinery was set into motion and Palwinder Singh, Sub Inspector/Station House Officer (PW-10) along with other police officials went to Police Station City Ferozepur and after collecting ruqa, Ex. PJ, came to Civil Hospital. At that place, he recorded the statement of the complainant, Ex. PA, about the occurrence and after making his endorsement, Ex. PA/1, upon the same sent to the Police Station on the basis of which, formal FIR, Ex. PA/2, was recorded against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The inquest report, Ex. PK, was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination under the supervision of Parveen Kumar, Head Constable. On account of night time, Assistant Sub Inspector did not proceed to the spot on that day and he went to the spot on 10.1.2002 and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan Ex. PP with correct marginal notes. The photographer was called, who photographed the spot. The Station House Officer collected blood from the spot and put the same in a small plastic box. That box was converted into a parcel and was sealed by him. The same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PL. One blood stained ‘toka’ was found lying outside the shop, which was also taken into possession after converting it into a parcel. The autopsy on the dead body was performed by Dr. S.P. Kataria, who was examined as PW-6, who found a number of ante mortem injuries on the dead body and submitted his opinion that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of those injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After the post mortem examination the wearing apparels found on the dead body were produced by Parveen Kumar, Head Constable, before the Station House Officer, who converted those into a parcel and sealed the same. After the post mortem examination the wearing apparels found on the dead body were produced by Parveen Kumar, Head Constable, before the Station House Officer, who converted those into a parcel and sealed the same. The sealed parcel containing the blood and the ’toka’ were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh, through Hardial Singh, Head Constable (PW-5) and were delivered at that place with seal intact. After analysis, it was reported by Deputy Director of that Laboratory, vide his report Ex. PS, that the contents of both those parcels were stained with human blood. The Station House Officer came to know about the arrest of the accused in the murder case of his own wife and daughter by the police of Police Station Sadar Faridkot. On 14.2.2002 he went to that Police Station and came to know that the accused had already been sent to Central Jail, Faridkot. The accused was formally arrested in this case also and after completion of necessary formalities, he was sent up for trial. 2. The appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Jarnail Singh, complainant (PW-1), Gurpreet Singh (PW-2), Krishan Lal Sondhi, Draftsman (PW-3), Suresh Kumar, Head Constable ( PW-4), Hardial Singh, Head Constable (PW-5), Dr. S.P. Kataria (PW-6), Joginder Singh, Head Constable (PW-7), Gurchetan Dass, Assistant Engineer, P.S.E.B, (PW-8),. Parveen Kumar, Head Constable (PW­ 9), Palwinder Singh, Station House Officer (PW-10) and tendered in evidence report, Ex. PS, of the Forensic Science Laboratory. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication. He opted not to lead any evidence in defence. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case minutely. The learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State of Punjab, has vehemently argued that the prosecution case is fully proved through the mouth of Jarnail Singh, complainant (PW-1), who witnessed the occurrence and has furnished consistent version before appellant. Learned State counsel has also submitted that the FIR was promptly lodged with the police, which further creates confidence in the truthfulness of that version. Learned State counsel has also submitted that the FIR was promptly lodged with the police, which further creates confidence in the truthfulness of that version. Learned State counsel has also pointed out that there was some delay in sending the special report to the Magistrate, but that cannot be a ground for doubting the genesis and fibre of the prosecution story and finally, learned counsel submitted that the prosecution case has been duly proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the other hand, has valiantly argued that it was a case of blind murder and no witness has ever witnessed the said incident. Both the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution were, in fact, introduced later on and this fact stands proved from the evidence of the prosecution itself. The deceased was removed to the hospital by one Amrik Singh and not by these witnesses. Had they been present at the spot, they must have taken the deceased to the hospital and their statements must have been recorded during the inquest proceedings. They were not available to the Investigating Agency till the inquest proceedings were concluded and it was only thereafter that they were introduced into the picture and that is why, there is delay in sending the special report to the ilIaqa Magistrate. It is further argued that the place of occurrence is situated in a thickly populated area and there are number of shops adjoining the same, which were open at the time of occurrence. Even then no person from those shops were associated in the investigation and in fact, Vicky hair dresser, in whose shop the occurrence is said to have taken place, was the best witness and even he has not been examined by the prosecution and for his non examination, an adverse inference is to be drawn and no reliance can be placed on the alleged eye witnesses in the absence of any independent corroboration. Learned counsel has also forcefully argued that there are material omissions in the FIR, which was lodged by Jarnail Singh PW-1. Learned counsel has also forcefully argued that there are material omissions in the FIR, which was lodged by Jarnail Singh PW-1. Had he been present at the time of alleged occurrence, there was no possibility of those omissions and the prosecution witnesses have tried to make improvements regarding the receipt of injuries by the deceased in order to make the same consonance with the medical evidence. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that according to the eye witnesses, after the first blow was given by the accused to the deceased, he entered the shop of Vicky hair dresser and struck in the glass door thereby receiving the other injuries and in case, he received injuries in the manner it was alleged, they were bound to be fragments of glass pieces in those injuries, but no such fragments of glass pieces were found by the doctor at the time of the post mortem examination and the testimony of the complainant totally stands falsified the medical evidence. By referring to the evidence on record, learned counsel has further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, as disclosed by the complainant, blows with the dagger were given by the appellant thrust wise while sitting on the knee of the deceased. However, only one penetrating wound was found on the dead body whereas there should have been at least four such wounds. Learned counsel has also submitted that the presence of Gurpreet Singh (PW-2) at the spot is very much doubtful and since this witness was suffering from arthritis and it was severe winter at the time of occurrence, such a patient would have been the last person to take a stroll at such a time. It is highly improbable that he would just come to meet the complainant and was to leave in the night itself for his village, which was at a distance of more than 09 Kms and it becomes very clear that the story to that effect has been connected only in order to make the presence of this witness at the spot probable and finally, he prayed for the acquittal of the appellant. 6. Record further spells out that Jarnail Singh (PW-1) has categorically deposed that occurrence took place at about 6.15 p.m. when he along with his brother-in-law Gurpreet Singh reached near the Malhotra store. 6. Record further spells out that Jarnail Singh (PW-1) has categorically deposed that occurrence took place at about 6.15 p.m. when he along with his brother-in-law Gurpreet Singh reached near the Malhotra store. Within about twenty minutes, they took the deceased to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur. Palwinder Singh (PW-10) has further disclosed that he received a message on the telephone from the City Police Station Ferozepur that the deceased had succumbed to his injuries in the hospital and proceedings be taken accordingly and on account of this information, he collected the ruqa from the police Station and went to the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, where he met Jarnail Singh and recorded the statement on the basis of which, FIR was lodged. A ruqa, Ex. PJ, further clearly spells out that the deceased was brought dead to the hospital at 6.45 P.M. Statement of the complainant, Ex. PA, was recorded at 9.05 P.M. and the FIR was recorded at 9.20 P.M. Some time was bound to be consumed in recording the statement of the complainant after the occurrence and it is crystal clear that the FIR was promptly lodged, but the special report was received by the iIlaqa Magistrate at 10.45 P.M. and the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General has conceded that there was some delay in sending special report to the Magistrate. It is well settled law that in case presence of the eye witnesses is doubtful, then delay on the receipt of the said report by the Magistrate can only be attributed to the negligence or conduct of the officials interested with the task of giving special report to the Magistrate and would not have bearing on the merits of the case. Moreover, to our mind, there is nothing on record to show that the intervening time was consumed for fabricating false version and in such like circumstances, when the FIR was being lodged promptly and there is nothing to suggest that there was any consultation or deliberations or confabulations, then delay in the special report in the instant case cannot demolish the prosecution case and is not fatal to the prosecution in any manner. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly pointed out that the Court has to scrutinize the prosecution evidence otherwise, in order to ascertain if the alleged eye witnesses were actually present at the spot and witnessed the occurrence and that the intervening period has not been utilized for fabricating the prosecution version and introduction of false witnesses and the learned trial Court rightly concluded that the delay is not fatal and is insignificant. 7. At this stage, we would like to peep through the ocular version put forward by the prosecution through the mouth of Jarnail Singh, the complainant, (PW-1) and Gurpreet Singh (PW-2). After having gone through the statement of Jarnail Singh (PW-1), we find that he has supported the prosecution version and has categorically deposed that on 9.1.2002, he along with the brother of his wife Gurpreet Singh had gone for walk and when at about 6.15 P. M., they reached near the Malhotra Store, they found that the appellant was present there with a toka in his hand with the help of which he gave a blow on the head of his son Yadwinder Singh. Then Yadwinder Singh entered the shop of Vicky hair dresser and struck in the glass door as a result of which the glass thereof was broken and he fell inside the shop. The accused took out a kirch from the right appellant inflicted four blows with that kirch on the chest of Yadwinder Singh and another blow was given by the appellant on his face. He and Gurpreet Singh raised an alarm upon which he removed the licensed pistol as well as licence of Yadwinder Singh and escaped from the spot along with his kirch, in his car make Zen. He himself and Gurpreet Singh entered the shop of the barber and found Yadwinder Singh was lying unconscious on account of the injuries received by him. After making arrangement for the conveyance, they removed him to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, where he was declared dead. 8. The motive was also furnished by the complainant by stating that the appellant had the apprehension that he (Yadwinder Singh) had illicit relations with his wife and on that count, he caused injuries to him. The version put forward by this star witness of the prosecution was fully corroborated by Gurpreet Singh (PW-2), who has also deposed in a similar fashion. The version put forward by this star witness of the prosecution was fully corroborated by Gurpreet Singh (PW-2), who has also deposed in a similar fashion. They both were cross­ examined at length, but nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the defence. Both have stuck to their stand with regard to the causing of injuries on the person of Yadwinder Singh by the appellant at the shop of Vicky Barber. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has vehemently argued that both these witnesses are interested witnesses as they are related to the deceased and in the absence of any independent corroboration, their testimony is liable to be discarded, but this contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. Speaking of interested and relations witnesses, the Supreme Court observed in Hari Singh Vs. State of U.P., A.I.R.1975 S.C. 1501, Sarwan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2304 and Gopal Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1978 Supreme Court Cases (Crt.) 378, reads thus: “The testimony of eye witnesses cannot be rejected merely because they are interested and partisan witnesses. It is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such but the Court require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little care. Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without any interested evidence may be available and no other e.g. When an occurrence had taken place at midnight in the house then the only witnesses who could see the occurrence may be family members. In such case, it would not be proper to insist that the evidence of the family members should be disbelieved merely because of their interestedness. Relation witnesses shall be the least disposed to falsely implicate the appellant or substitute him in place of the real culprit.” 9. In such case, it would not be proper to insist that the evidence of the family members should be disbelieved merely because of their interestedness. Relation witnesses shall be the least disposed to falsely implicate the appellant or substitute him in place of the real culprit.” 9. The presence of Jarnail Singh (PW-1) and Gurpreet Singh (PW-2) could not be doubted and their presence at the scene of occurrence was highly probable and the very fact that they were undoubtedly relation and partisan of the deceased by itself does not make their evidence unreliable, it only puts the Court to scrutinise their evidence with more than ordinary care. No standard reaction can be expected from the eye witnesses and the contention of the learned counsel that the very fact that they did not intervene spells out that they were not present at the time of occurrence is liable to be rejected. The presence of Jarnail Singh (PW-1) and Gurpreet Singh (PW-2) at the scene of the occurrence cannot be doubted simply because they did not physically intervene. In addition to this, they have no reason to falsely implicate the accused and let the real culprit go scot free. There is nothing to disbelieve their sworn testimony and their evidence is reliable. This reasoning of mine is also supported by the proposition of law contained in the case of Angad Vs. State of Maharashtra 1981 Criminal Law Journal, 733, wherein it was laid down by the Apex Court as under:­ “The evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they did not intervene to save the deceased.” In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the presence of Jarnail Singh (PW-1) and Gurpreet Singh (PW-2) at the scene of the occurrence is most natural and their evidence remain unshaken despite elaborate cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel before the trial Court. The statements of both these witnesses inspire confidence and it goes to show that appellant inflicted injuries on the person of Yadwinder Singh resulting in his death. The factum of injuries caused by appellant Gurcharan Singh is also proved as disclosed by Dr. S.P.Kataria (PW-6), who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, while he was posted as Pathologist, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and found number of injuries on the person of the deceased. 10. The factum of injuries caused by appellant Gurcharan Singh is also proved as disclosed by Dr. S.P.Kataria (PW-6), who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, while he was posted as Pathologist, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and found number of injuries on the person of the deceased. 10. Now the question arises as to why these two aforesaid witnesses did not intervene, especially when they were so much near the place of occurrence, but in spite of that they could not have fourage to rush ahead and caught hold of the accused so as to save the life of his son Yadwinder Singh from the clutches of the accused. It has come in the testimony of Gurpreet Singh (PW-2) that he had made an attempt to catch hold of the accused by going ahead, but he could not run for that purpose. Further, he has disclosed that Jarnail Singh (PW-1) was ahead of him by 4-5 karam and he (Gurpreet Singh) was at a distance of 2-3 karam from the shop of the hair dresser. The fact of not apprehending the accused at the spot has also been disclosed by these two witnesses during their cross examination that the accused fled away from the spot on the car which was lying parked just near the place of occurrence, as discussed above and in these circumstances, it was not possible for them to apprehend the accused. No material is available on the record to show that the conduct of these two witnesses was so much unnatural rendering their presence at the scene of the occurrence highly doubtful. 11. It is, no doubt, true that doctor omitted to mention the name of complainant Jarnail Singh in the ruqa; the Sub Inspector failed to get the dead body identified during the inquest proceedings and in fact, the dead body was identified by Amrik Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, but this is no ground for doubting the presence of 14 Jarnail Singh complainant (PW-1) and Gurpreet Singh (PW-2) at the time of occurrence. Since the purpose of inquest proceedings is only to ascertain the cause of death and the omission on the part of the doctor by not mentioning the name of the complainant Jarnail Singh (PW-1) and Gurpreet Singh (PW-2) is not fatal to the case of prosecution. Since the purpose of inquest proceedings is only to ascertain the cause of death and the omission on the part of the doctor by not mentioning the name of the complainant Jarnail Singh (PW-1) and Gurpreet Singh (PW-2) is not fatal to the case of prosecution. In any manner as both the witnesses, who have provided ocular version, stood like a rock since their testimony have not been shaken by the lengthy cross-examination in any manner. Moreover, the testimony of Gurpreet Singh (PW-2) further spells out that he was suffering from arthritis and his ailment used to aggravate during the winter season, but he has also disclosed that he was advised by the doctor to take a stroll. His visit to the house of the complainant is not unnatural to whom his real sister was married. His statement inspires full confidence since he has deposed only about the causing of injuries by the appellant outside the shop and he disclosed that he has not seen the causing of other injuries as he was still at some distance from the complainant, to whom the scene of occurrence was visible. If he had been introduced later on by the prosecution, he could have even deposed about the causing of other injuries, which were inflicted in the shop of the barber. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out some discrepancies in the statements of both these witnesses, namely, Jarnail Singh (PW-1) and Gurpreet Singh. (PW-2). Jarnail Singh, complainant (PW-1) has deposed that Gurpreet Singh had come to him at about 5-5.30 P.M. and they had spent 15-20 minutes together in the house itself and that the deceased had left the house at 5/5.15 P.M., but according to Gurpreet Singh (PW-2), he had stayed in the house of the complainant for about 20-30 minutes and that the deceased left the house 10-15 minutes before them. As per the testimony of Jarnail Singh (PW-1), Gurpreet Singh was walking slowly, but according to him, he was walking at a normal speed. As per the testimony of Jarnail Singh (PW-1), Gurpreet Singh was walking slowly, but according to him, he was walking at a normal speed. According to the statement of Jarnail Singh (PW~1), they were at a distance of 10-11 Karam from the Vicky hair dresser when this occurrence took place and the car of the appellant was lying parked at a distance of 10-12 karam, whereas according to Gurpreet Singh (PW-2), they were at a distance of 10-15 Karam from that shop and the car of the appellant was lying parked at a distance of about two karam. According to Jarnail Singh (PW-1) the conveyance in which the deceased was removed to the hospital, was brought to the spot by its owner of his own and immediately, they removed the deceased in that car to the hospital. According to Gurpreet Singh (PW-2), they had removed the deceased from the spot to the hospital after about 20-25 minutes and thus, according to him, the car was brought to the spot after about 20 minutes. All these discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant during the course of arguments are not so material so as to create doubt in the testimony of these two witnesses. Such types of discrepancies are bound to occur if the witnesses do depose truthfully before the Court after a lapse of more than 10 months. The testimony of the witnesses has to be adjudged on the basis of totality of circumstances and cannot be discarded merely on the ground of interestedness. After marshaling the record of the trial Court minutely, we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the statements of these two eye witnesses are consistent in material particulars. Their presence being natural at the scene of the occurrence, the reliance can be placed upon their testimony. Their testimony stood to the test of judicial scrutiny. Apart from this, minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the Investigating Officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. Apart from this, minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the Investigating Officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to be main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer. 13. It is again admitted case of the prosecution that occurrence in this case took place in the shop of Vicky hair dresser and therefore, he could have been the best witness to narrate the whole incident, but it has come out from the testimony of both these two eye witnesses, namely Jarnail Singh (PW-1) and Gurpreet Singh (PW-2), that the barber (Vicky hair dresser) had escaped from the spot when deceased entered his shop, while he was being chased by the appellant and therefore, he had not witnessed the occurrence and in such like circumstances, no adverse inference is required to be drawn against the prosecution, particularly when the Hair Dresser had left the shop and fled away from the scene of the occurrence. Moreover, it has been normally seen that no body from the public wants to entangle himself when such a crime is committed. If the place of occurrence is surrounded by houses or shops, the normal houses do not come forward to support the version of the prosecution in the Courts. The absence of any independent corroboration does not cause any dent in the prosecution version. It is well settled law that even on the solitary statement of the eye witness, the conviction of the accused can be based, if his testimony is found to be trustworthy and worth credence. In the instant case, both the eye witnesses, namely, Jarnail Singh (PW-1) and Gurpreet Singh (PW-2) have corroborated their in material statements particulars and cannot be discarded in any manner. 14. In the instant case, both the eye witnesses, namely, Jarnail Singh (PW-1) and Gurpreet Singh (PW-2) have corroborated their in material statements particulars and cannot be discarded in any manner. 14. The case of the prosecution is also to be examined on this angle as to why the prosecution fails to mention all the details regarding motive, receipt of injuries in an elaborate manner, weapon of offence used in the crime and other circumstances led to the commission of crime while recording the First Information Report. By non-mentioning of all these details in the First Information Report, as noted above, it is fatal to the case of the prosecution as the learned counsel for the appellant contends during the course of arguments. This contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection for the reasons to be recorded by us hereinafter. 15. Before we lay hands on the points as noted above, we would like to refer to the contents of the First Information Report which was got registered on the statement of the complainant by none other than the father of the deceased, who is also the star and eye witness to the occurrence. He stated that Yadwinder Singh @ Rana deceased was running a finance company at Talwandi Bhai and had been residing with him in Rose Avenue Ferozepur. The accused had the apprehension that the deceased had illicit relations with his wife and on that count, he was nourishing a grudge against him. On 9.1.2002 at about 6.00 P.M. the complainant along with Gurpreet Singh (PW-2), the brother of his wife, came out of his house for strolling. When they reached near the shops of Malhotra Cement, they found that the deceased and the accused were present in front of the shop of Vicky Hair Style and the accused holding a toka in his hand. He gave a blow with the same on the head of the deceased, upon which he entered the shop of said Vicky hair dresser and fell down. The accused followed him and after taking out kirch (dagger) from the right side “Dub” of his trousers, inflicted four blows continuously on the chest of the deceased. Another blow was given by him on the right side of his face. The accused followed him and after taking out kirch (dagger) from the right side “Dub” of his trousers, inflicted four blows continuously on the chest of the deceased. Another blow was given by him on the right side of his face. The complainant and Gurpreet Singh raised an alarm upon which the accused dishonestly removed the pistol and arm licence from the person of the deceased and escaped from that place in a motor-cycle of white colour, which was lying parked at that place. When both of them entered the shop of the hair dresser, they found the deceased to be unconscious. After arranging for a vehicle, they removed him to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, where he was declared dead by the doctor. 16. A perusal of the First Information Report clearly shows that the informant, who is the father of the ill fated son, disclosed the entire incident in the manner in which he had observed from his nacked eye near the place of occurrence, but while deposing before the Court as a witness, he improved his version by adding the left out events of the occurrence, which he might have forgotten on account of shock of the murder of his son at the time of recording the First Information Report, namely, that the deceased struck against the glasses of the door and that glass was broken when he rushed to enter the shop of Vicky hair dresser in order to save his life, but he fell down and the accused, who was chasing him, inflicted blows taking out a dagger from his right “Dub” on the chest and face of the deceased by sitting on the knee of the deceased, which he might have forgotten to get this event recorded in the First Information Report. Further, as per the medical evidence, nineteen injuries were shown to have been inflicted on the person of the deceased, as was observed by Dr. S.P.Kataria, who deposed in the Court while appearing in the witness box as PW-6 and proved his post mortem report Ex. PE. He opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of those injuries which were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause the death in the normal course of nature. 17. PE. He opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of those injuries which were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause the death in the normal course of nature. 17. In our considered view, the First Information Report is not expected to contain each and every detail regarding sequence of events and that of the receipt of injuries and later on making additions therein, that does not amount to an improvement in the First Information Report! inasmuch as, in the First Information Report, motive part and the receipts of the injuries how and in what manner those had been inflicted by the accused, have clearly been mentioned therein. If the sequence of events had not been incorporated by the lodger of the First Information Report at the time of recording of the First Information Report, that might have been left out by him in the first instance on account of shock of murder of his /son and subsequently by repeating the same occurrence in his mind, he adds something more to improve his version while appearing into the witness box as a witness, does not make the prosecution story unbelievable on account of omission of that very part by the complainant in the First Information Report or render the presence of the witness doubtful at the scene of the occurrence. Like wise, the details regarding the receipt of the injuries given in the Court cannot be termed as an improvement as it gives only the details of the injuries and as such, we find that the prosecution has furnished a satisfactory explanation and in such like circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the said improvements have been made by the witness in order to make the ocular evidence in consonance with the medical evidence. 18. We also find from the record that the testimony of the aforementioned witnesses, namely, Jarnail Singh (PW-1) and Gurpreet Singh (PW-2) are corroborated by the statement of Palwinder Singh (PW-10), who collected the blood and put the same in the small box, which was converted into parcel and sealed by him. That sealed parcel was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PL. That sealed parcel was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PL. One toka stained with blood was recovered in front of the shop of the barber, which was also converted in a sealed parcel and was taken into possession. The broken pieces of glass were lying there and the same were collected and were converted into a sealed parcel. According to this witness, he had deposited the case property with Joginder Singh, Moharrir Head Constable. When this witness stepped into the witness box as PW-7, he proved on the record his affidavit, Ex. PG and supported the statement of the Investigating Officer about the deposit of the case property with him on 10.1.2002. He also deposed therein that the sealed parcels containing the blood and the toka were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 16.1.2002 through Hardial Singh, Head Constable. Hardial Singh stepped into the witness box as PW-5 and proved on the record his affidavit, Ex. PO, He has sworn therein that both the sealed parcels were taken by him to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh and were deposited at the place with seal intact. As per the report of the Deputy Director of the Laboratory, both the articles in the parcels were stained with human blood. All this evidence fully corroborates the statements of the complainant (PW-1) and Gurpreet Singh (PW-2) about the place of occurrence and also that one of the injuries was caused by the appellant-accused to the deceased outside the shop with the help of the toka since it (toka) was found to be stained with human blood and the liquid collected from inside the shop was also found to be human blood. 19. The fact of preparation of the inquest report by Palwinder Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-1 0) and thereafter handing over the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination through Parveen Kumar, Head Constable and Satinder Pal Singh, Constable is also corroborated from the affidavit tendered by Head Constable Parveen Kumar (PW-9), who, had stated therein that, he had taken the dead body to the doctor, who performed the autopsy thereon. 20. 20. The version put forward by the complainant Jarnail Singh (PW-1) that the appellant had removed the pistol as well as arms licence of Yadwinder Singh and escaped from the spot has rightly been deceased was not having the aforementioned weapon with him at the time of occurrence. If the deceased was having such a pistol at the time of occurrence, it was quite natural for him to use the same to save his life particularly when the first blow was given to him with the help of toka. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we come to conclusion that the statement to that extent made by the complainant seems to be false. On the basis of that statement, it cannot be held that the appellant removed the pistol or arms licence dishonestly from the person of the deceased. 21. In view of the detailed discussions made above, Criminal filed by the appellant fails and is dismissed. Accordingly, conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions his Judge, Ferozepur, Additional Session Judge, Ferozepur, vide his judgment/order dated 19.9.2003 is hereby affirmed. ————————