M. CHAUDHARY, J. This is a criminal appeal filed on behalf of the accused appellants from judgment and order dated 21st of October, 1982 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 269 of 1980, State v. Ram Charan and another, convicting the accused appellants under sections 302 and 307 IPC each read with section 34 IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively thereunder. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal as unfolded during the trial in brief are that at about 6:00 a. m. on 14th of June, 1980 Prem Narain alongwith his son Jaipal were going from their village to their fields for fertilizing their fields. Jaipal was plying the bullock cart loaded with manure and Prem Narain was going behind the bullock cart on foot. Gola and Mangal were also going in the bullock cart loaded with fertilizer. As the bullock cart driven by Jaipal reached near the talab Ram Charan armed with gun and Karan with Pharsa emerged from the shrubs and Ram Charan fired at Jaipal with gun hitting him at his head. Sustaining the firearm injury Jaipal fell down and then Karan gave pharsa blows to Jaipal. In the meanwhile Prem Narain rushed for the rescue of his son Jaipal. Immediately Ram Charan fired a shot at Prem Narain but he escaped and ran away for his life. Sustaining the fatal injuries Jaipal died on the spot instantaneously. Then Prem Narain went to his house and informed his family members and then leaving his brother Bahadur and some of the co-villagers near the dead body he went to the market at Panwari. He got report of the occurrence scribed by one Mohd. Iqbal and then went to police station Panwari situate at a distance of 11 miles from village Gaurihari and handed over written report of the occurrence to the police there at 2:00 p. m. The police registered a crime against the accused accordingly and started the investigation. Station Officer Ram Singh who took up investigation of the case in his hands after necessary formalities recorded the statements of Prem Narain at the police station itself. Then he went to the place of occurrence and drew inquest on the dead body of Jaipal. Station Officer Ram Singh who took up investigation of the case in his hands after necessary formalities recorded the statements of Prem Narain at the police station itself. Then he went to the place of occurrence and drew inquest on the dead body of Jaipal. He handed over the dead body of Jaipal in the sealed cover alongwith necessary papers to constables Hamid Khan and Durga Prasad for being taken for its post mortem. He also collected bloodstained and simple earth from the place of occurrence and picked up an empty cartridge and a plastic tikli lying on the spot and prepared their memos and sealed them in separate packets. He also recorded statements of the witnesses and did other necessary things. 3. Autopsy conducted on the dead body by Dr. Indu Kumar Jain, medical officer State dispensary Rath on 15th of June 1980 at 2:30 p. m. revealed below noted ante mortem injuries: 1. Gunshot wound of entry 3 cm x 3 cm x brain deep on left side of forehead 5 cm above the left eyebrow. 2. Incised wound 18 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on right mandibular region. Mandible, maxilla and half of lower part of right ear cut. 3. Incised wound 16 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on right side of neck 1. 5 cm below injury No. 2. 4. Incised wound 16 cm x 3. 5 cm x bone deep on front and right side of neck connected with injury No. 4. 5. Incised wound 1 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on right side of neck 2 cm below injury No. 4. 6. Multiple abrasions in an area of 12 cm x 4. 5 cm in the posterior part of left forearm 6 cm below left elbow joint. 7. An incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x skin deep on front of right shoulder. On internal examination brain was found soft and pulpy and its membrane congested. 2nd, 3rd and 4th cervical vertebrae were found completely cut. Trachea and oesophagus were also cut. Big blood vessels were cut on both the sides. The doctor opined that the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage about 36 hours ago. 4. After completing investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 5. 2nd, 3rd and 4th cervical vertebrae were found completely cut. Trachea and oesophagus were also cut. Big blood vessels were cut on both the sides. The doctor opined that the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage about 36 hours ago. 4. After completing investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 5. After framing of charge against the accused the prosecution examined Prem Narain (PW 3) as eye-witness of the occurrence. It appears that witnesses Gola and Bhawani Din were present in the Court when the case was taken up and since no ADGC was present on behalf of the State to examine the witnesses the Court examined Gola (CW 1) and Bhawani Din (CW 2 ). PVV 5 Dr. Indu Kumar Jain who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jaipal proved the post mortem report deposing that the ante mortem injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW 5 SI Ram Singh who investigated the crime and after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused proved the police papers. 6. The accused pleaded not guilty denying the alleged occurrence altogether attributing their false implication to animosity. Accused Ram Charan admitted in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. that he was prosecuted for theft of she-goats of Prem Narain about one year ago and he was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court in that theft case but acquitted in appeal. 7. On an appraisal of evidence on the record the learned Trial Judge held the accused guilty of the charge levelled against them and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order the accused appellants preferred this appeal for redress. 9. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna and Sri IN. Mulla, learned Counsels for the appellants and Sri M. A. Siddiqui, learned AGA for the State respondent. 10. A perusal of the record goes to show that CW 1 Gola and CW 2 Bhawani Din did not support the prosecution case against the accused as both of them stated in their examination-in-chief that they did not witness the murder of Jaipal and that they had heard in the village that he was murdered. 10. A perusal of the record goes to show that CW 1 Gola and CW 2 Bhawani Din did not support the prosecution case against the accused as both of them stated in their examination-in-chief that they did not witness the murder of Jaipal and that they had heard in the village that he was murdered. PW 3 Prem Nath, father of the deceased and the first informant narrated all the facts of the occurrence from the beginning to the end as stated above deposing that the alleged morning he alongwith his son Jaipal taking bullock cart loaded with fertilizer was going to his fields; that Jaipal was plying the bullock cart and he was going on foot behind the bullock cart, that as the bullock cart reached near the talab Ram Charan and his son Karan emerged from the shrubs and Ram Charan fired at Jaipal with gun hitting him at his head and sustaining the gunshot injuries as Jaipal fell down Karan gave pharsa blows to him; that as he challenged the assailants Ram Charan fired at him but he escaped and ran away for his life and that sustaining the fatal injuries Jaipal died on the spot instantaneously. This witness Prem Narain was subjected to searching and gruelling cross-examination but nothing tangible could be elicited therefrom to shake his credibility. Sworn testimony of PW 3 Prem Narain stands corroborated by FIR of the occurrence lodged at the police station and the medical evidence. A perusal of the site plan map goes to show that Jaipal was fired from left side and a perusal of the post mortem report goes to show that he received firearm wound on left side of his forehead. PW 3 Prem Narain further deposed that after receiving firearm injury he fell down and then Karan gave him pharsa blows. A perusal of the post mortem report goes to show that autopsy revealed multiple ante mortem abrasions in posterior part of his left forearm in an area of 12 cm x 4. 5 cm besides several ante mortem incised wounds. A perusal of the post mortem report further goes to show that all the five incised wounds were caused to him on right mandible region, right side of neck and right shoulder. 5 cm besides several ante mortem incised wounds. A perusal of the post mortem report further goes to show that all the five incised wounds were caused to him on right mandible region, right side of neck and right shoulder. Thus a quite vivid and picturesque version of the assault given by PW 3 Prem Narain stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence. In our view sworn testimony of PW 3 Prem Narain corroborated by FIR of the occurrence and medical evidence is credible and trustworthy. However, the appellants learned Counsel has advanced following arguments assailing judgment of the Trial Court and now we shall see if any of them has got any force in it. 11. The appellants learned Counsel vehemently argued that FIR of the occurrence is much delayed as the incident took place on 14th of June, 1980 at about 6:00 a. m. and FIR of the occurrence was lodged at 2:00 p. m. whereas police station Panwari is only 11 miles away from village Gauri-hari. . PW 3 Prem Narain stated in his ex-arrunation-in-chief that the occiirrence took place at about 6:30 a. m. ; that then he went to his house and informed the family members about the occurrence and that then after leaving his brother and other co-villagers near the dead body at the scene of occurrence he went to Panwari market on foot; that on reaching the market he got report of the occurrence scribed by one Mohd. Iqbal and that then taking the written report he went to police station Panwari where he handed over written report of the occurrence to the Head Moharrir. A perusal of the written report goes to show that time of 6:00 a. m. has been given by Prem Narain therein as the time when they started taking the bullock cart loaded with fertilizer for going to their fields. Jaipal, young son of Prem Narain only 22 years of age was murdered in front of his eyes and being a helpless father he had to see and bear that mental agony. Young widow of Jaipal deceased was present in the house and his mother also. After consoling ladies of the house and leaving his brother Bahadur and some of the co-villagers near the dead body at the scene of occurrence he went to Panwari on foot in the mid of June. Young widow of Jaipal deceased was present in the house and his mother also. After consoling ladies of the house and leaving his brother Bahadur and some of the co-villagers near the dead body at the scene of occurrence he went to Panwari on foot in the mid of June. After covering distance of eleven miles on foot he reached Panwari market and got report of the occurrence scribed by one Mohd Iqbal at his shop and then taking the written report he went to police station Panwari and handed over the same to the Head Moharrir there. No doubt, FIR of the occurrence was not lodged promptly but under the circumstances it can not be said to be much delayed also. Thus considering the mental state of agony and shock of the deceaseds father who witnessed the murder of his own son aged about 22 years only we are of the view that FIR lodged by Prem Narain who went to police station Panwari situate at a distance of eleven miles from the village on foot can not be said to be delayed. 12. The appellants learned Counsel strenuously argued that sole testimony of PW 3 Prem Narain should not be relied upon implicitly as being father of the deceased he was closely related to him. The said argument advanced by the appellants learned Counsel has got no substance in it. No doubt, Prem Narain being father of the deceased was closely related to him but testimony of a related witness can not be discarded straightway. What is required is that evidence of a related witness has to be scrutinized cautiously and carefully. After careful scrutiny testimony of PW 3 Prem Narain has been found to be trustworthy. This witness PW 3 Prem Narain withstood his cross-examination firmly and nothing substantial could be elicited therefrom to shake his credibility. Further, medical evidence has lent credence to his testimony. 13. It has also been argued by the appellants learned Counsel that conduct of the deceaseds father is highly improbable as after witnessing the murder of his son he did not make necessary efforts to save him. Further, medical evidence has lent credence to his testimony. 13. It has also been argued by the appellants learned Counsel that conduct of the deceaseds father is highly improbable as after witnessing the murder of his son he did not make necessary efforts to save him. The said argument advanced by the appellants learned Counsel is wholly fallacious as PW 3 Prem Narain deposed that Ram Charan fired at Jaipal with gun hitting him at his forehead and receiving the firearm injury he fell down and then Karan assaulted him with pharsa that immediately as he challenged the miscreants Ram Charan fired at him but he escaped and ran for his life. It is most natural conduct of a father. Every human being has a natural instinct of self-preservation. When Jaipal was assaulted by the miscreants he challenged them but when he was fired at he had no option but to run away for his life. When both the accused were armed with lethal weapons and he was empty handed what he could do more. Hence, it can not be said that Premnarain did not make any effort to save his son or his conduct was improbable at the time of occurrence. 14. The appellants learned Counsel vehemently argued that since autopsy revealed that skin was peeled off at some places on the dead body and hairs were loose and nails easily pulled out this position takes place after 48 hours of death and in all probability Jaipal must have been murdered much earlier. No doubt Dr. I. K. Jain who conducted autopsy on the dead body admitted the said fact. In the instant case murder was committed at about 6:30 a. m. in mid of June in Hamirpur, a district in eastern U. P. which remains exceptionally hot in summer season. A perusal of the inquest report goes to show that at that time the deceased was putting on only an underwear and vest. In that condition the dead body kept lying in open from 6:30 a. m. to 6:00 p. m. in the mid of June; and presence of hot waves in air promoted putrefaction. In Coxs Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, sixth edition while dealing with Post Mortem Decomposition it is mentioned on page 218 that "after death, two processes begin which lead to breakdown of the body tissues. In Coxs Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, sixth edition while dealing with Post Mortem Decomposition it is mentioned on page 218 that "after death, two processes begin which lead to breakdown of the body tissues. The first is autolysis and the second is bacterial putrefaction. Both these processes are commonly included under the terms "putrefaction" or "decomposition"". . . Somewhat later than autolysis, the action of bacteria becomes apparent and it is this which produces the most dramatic changes of putrefaction. A time scale is so variable as to be almost useless but naked eye evidence of putrefaction may be seen within 24-48 hours in temperate climates or 6 hours in the summer months in India. " Under the circumstances, decomposition would have started in the body after 24 hours due to extreme hot in mid of June. 15. Lastly, it has been argued by the appellants learned Counsel that the investigating officer did not get licenced gun of Ram Charan sent to Ballistic Expert for his opinion. PW 3 Prem Narain nowhere deposed that accused Ram Charan fired with his licenced gun. Moreover, it is very difficult for a layman to distinguish if the gun used by the assailant at the time of assault was countrymade gun or licenced gun. Since the investigating officer had picked up an empty plastic cartridge and a plastic tikli from the scene of occurrence he might not have thought it proper to send the empty cartridge and tikli and licenced gun of the accused to Ballistic Expert. PW 4 SI Ram Singh, the investigating officer was not questioned thereabout by the defence Counsel in his cross-examination so that he would have an opportunity to explain the same. 15. Thus considering the evidence on record and circumstances attending the case and giving our anxious consideration to all the relevant aspects of the case we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge was perfectly justified in recording finding cl conviction against the accused. 16. The appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned judgment convicting accused appellants Ram Charan and Karan under sections 302 and 307 each read with section 34 IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively thereudrier and directing both the sentences to run concurrently is affirmed. Both the appellants are on bail. The appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned judgment convicting accused appellants Ram Charan and Karan under sections 302 and 307 each read with section 34 IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively thereudrier and directing both the sentences to run concurrently is affirmed. Both the appellants are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hamirpur is directed to get both the appellants arrested and send them to jail to serve out the sentence imposed upon each of them. 17. Office is directed to send copy of the judgment and record of lower Court to the Court below immediately for ensuring compliance under intimation to this Court within one month from today. Appeal Dismissed. .