JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J.:- This is an appeal against the judgment dated 9.7.2003 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby he convicted Gurmail Singh son of Bachan Singh, Bikkar Singh son of Bachan Singh, Hakam Singh son of Bachan Singh and Bachan Singh son of Kabal Singh under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.750/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo R.I. for two months. 2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PN of Harwinder Kaur, mother of deceased Darshan Singh. 3. Harwinder Kaur stated, that she is a resident of Village Poohla. She had two sons namely Darshan Singh and Sukhwinder Singh. Sukhwinder Singh was a priest in a Gurudwara at Village Sahuwala (Haryana). Darshan Singh was residing with his family with her. On 7.2.2001 in the night, Bhura Singh son of Joginder Singh, father-in-law of Darshan Singh and her brother Sewa Singh son of Arjan Singh came to her house to meet her. Her son Darshan Singh had gone to the fields to look after the wheat crop, so that the cattle did not destroy it. He did not come back. At about 10.30 p.m., she along with Bhura Singh and Sewa Singh went to the fields looking for Darshan Singh. After getting Darshan Singh from the field, they came to the phirni of Bathanwali. Darshan Singh asked them to stop on the phirni and he would come after giving a message. They kept waiting for Darshan Singh for about 15 minutes. They heard shouts from the side of the house of Gurmail Singh son of Bachan Singh. They went towards the house of Gurmail Singh and they saw in the house Gurmail Singh armed with a stick, Bikkar Singh armed with hoe (Kasia), Hakam Singh armed with a wooden stick and Bachan Singh armed with bamboo stick, all residents of Village Poohla. They were causing injuries with their respective weapons to Darshan Singh. Bikkar Singh gave a Kasia blow from the reverse side to Darshan Singh, which hit on his head. Gurmail Singh inflicted a stick blow on the head of Darshan Singh and Hakam Singh gave a wooden rod blow on the head of Darshan Singh. Bachan Singh inflicted a stick blow on the neck of Darshan Singh. Darshan Singh fell down on the ground. Gurmail Singh inflicted a stick blow on the head of Darshan Singh and Hakam Singh gave a wooden rod blow on the head of Darshan Singh. Bachan Singh inflicted a stick blow on the neck of Darshan Singh. Darshan Singh fell down on the ground. All of them gave more injuries to Darshan Singh, when he was lying down. They were telling Darshan Singh, that they would teach him a lesson for meeting the wife of Gurmail Singh. Hamir Kaur @ Bhape wife of Gurmail Singh tried to save Darshan Singh. All the four then inflicted injuries on her head, mouth, nose and hand with their respective weapons. Thereafter, the accused ran away. Darshan Singh and Bhape died on the spot. After leaving Bhura Singh at the spot to guard the dead bodies, Harvinder Kaur taking Sewa Singh went to Bathinda for giving information to her husband’s elder brother Mukhtiar Singh. Thereafter, she came back to Poohla and kept waiting for another relative. Statement of Harwinder Kaur was recorded by SI Kirpal Singh SHO on the canal, when she was going with Mukhtiar Singh and Sewa Singh to inform the police. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PN/2 was recorded on 8.2.2001 at 11.20 a.m. at Police Station Nathana. The special report reached the J.M.I.C. (Duty Magistrate), Bathinda on 8.2.2001 at 4.05 p.m. 4. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box HC Bhag Singh PW1, Constable Mukhtiar Singh PW2, Dr. Niranjan Lal PW3, HC Sukhmander Singh PW4, C Nachhatar Singh PW5, Sohan Lal PW6, Harwinder Kaur PW7, Bhura Singh PW8 and Kirpal Singh Inspector PW9. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that there is an unexplained delay of more than 12 hours in recording of FIR Ex.PN/2 and there is delay of about 18 hours from the time of occurrence till the special report reached the J.M.I.C., Bathinda. Harwinder Kaur PW7, in her statement Ex.PN given to SI Kirpal Singh PW9 stated, that she first went to Bathinda to inform Mukhtiar Singh, the elder brother of the deceased, about the occurrence. She reached there at about 1.00 a.m. on 8.2.2001. Thereafter, she came back and in the morning when she was going to the police station accompanied by Mukhtiar Singh, the police party met them and she recorded her statement Ex.PN. She reached there at about 1.00 a.m. on 8.2.2001. Thereafter, she came back and in the morning when she was going to the police station accompanied by Mukhtiar Singh, the police party met them and she recorded her statement Ex.PN. In the police proceedings, the name of Mukhtiar Singh has been mentioned accompanying Harwinder Kaur PW7. Harwinder Kaur PW7 in her statement in Court has not stated, that Mukhtiar Singh had accompanied her from Bathinda to her Village Poohla and thereafter, accompanied her to lodge the FIR. In the inquest proceedings the names of Sewa Singh and Bhura Singh PW8 figure, who have identified the body. Neither is the name of Mukhtiar Singh mentioned in the Inquest report Ex.PD, nor is his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. In fact Harwinder Kaur PW7 has stated in her testimony before the Court, that she did not come to Village Poohla with Mukhtiar Singh from Bathinda. This contradiction in the statement, as to whether Mukhtiar Singh accompanied her from Bathinda to Poohla in fact has brought out the truth. Bathinda is at a distance of about 15 K.Ms. from Village Poohla. She (PW7) has stated, that she went walking. She came back to Village Poohla without Mukhtiar Singh. In fact the story of going to Bathinda was only to cover up the delay. There was no need for Harwinder Kaur PW7 to go to Bathinda, as Bhura Singh PW8 and Sewa Singh, a close relative of the deceased, were present with her, who had witnessed the occurrence. Sewa Singh has been given up, as having been won over by the accused. 6. The conduct of the witnesses is highly suspicious. As per the prosecution case, Harwinder Kaur PW7, Bhura Singh PW8 and Sewa Singh witnessed the occurrence. Harwinder Kaur PW7 is the mother of the deceased. Bhura Singh PW8 is the father-in-law of the deceased and Sewa Singh is a close relative. None of them informed the Sarpanch or the respectables of the Village, regarding the occurrence. If Harwinder Kaur PW7 could go to Bathinda, which was at a distance of 15 K.Ms. away, in the mid night, she could have easily gone to the police station, accompanied by Bhura Singh PW8 and Sewa Singh. None of them informed the Sarpanch or the respectables of the Village, regarding the occurrence. If Harwinder Kaur PW7 could go to Bathinda, which was at a distance of 15 K.Ms. away, in the mid night, she could have easily gone to the police station, accompanied by Bhura Singh PW8 and Sewa Singh. Harwinder Kaur PW7 in her testimony before the Court has stated, that they peeped through the door of the house of appellant Gurmail Singh and saw the appellants beating both the deceased. Bhura Singh PW8 in his testimony before the Court has stated, that they entered the house of the appellants and saw the occurrence. Apart from them, 20-25 other persons were also present there. It is strange that Bhura Singh PW8, being the father-in-law of the deceased, did not intervene to stop the appellants from inflicting injuries on his son-in-law. Further it is strange that 20-25 persons, who were present, though seeing beating being given to the deceased instead of stopping or intervening as per Bhura Singh PW8, instead left the place. 7. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant Gurmail Singh has stated, that he came back to his house at 9.30 p.m. Deceased Darshan Singh was taking liquor in the presence of his wife Hamir Kaur alias Bhape deceased. He asked Darshan Singh to go away. Darshan Singh picked up a quarrel with him. He (Darshan Singh) picked up a Kasia and gave an injury on the forehead of appellant Gurmail Singh. Appellant Gurmail Singh ran away out of fear. People from the locality gathered, disliking the behaviour of both the deceased, they gave beating to Darshan Singh and Hamir Kaur alias Bhape with brickbats. The Investing Officer Kirpal Singh SI PW9 has stated in his testimony before the Court, that he had seen brickbats lying scattered near the dead bodies of the deceased. 8. Deceased Darshan Singh was a Jat by caste. Deceased Hamir Kaur alias Bhape was a Dalit and it was not liked by the people of the locality, of the relationship of Darshan Singh with Hamir Kaur. Head Constable Sukhmander Singh PW4, who took photographs Ex.P3 to Ex.P13 also stated, that he saw brickbats lying near the dead-bodies of the deceased. 9. Deceased Hamir Kaur alias Bhape was a Dalit and it was not liked by the people of the locality, of the relationship of Darshan Singh with Hamir Kaur. Head Constable Sukhmander Singh PW4, who took photographs Ex.P3 to Ex.P13 also stated, that he saw brickbats lying near the dead-bodies of the deceased. 9. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that the dead bodies of both Darshan Singh and Hamir Kaur alias Bhape were recovered from the house of the appellants. Murder had taken place within the four walls of the house of appellant Gurmail Singh. The brickbats theory has come up only when the Investigating Officer Kirpal Singh PW9, came into the witness box. Nothing has been put to the eye witnesses regarding the brickbats having been thrown by the people of the locality. There is no delay in the lodging of FIR Ex.PN/2. It is natural for Harwinder Kaur PW7, to go to Bathinda to inform Mukhtiar Singh, the elder brother of Darshan Singh deceased, as he was the elderly male member in the family. The testimony of Bhura Singh PW8 is cogent and inspiring. Both Harwinder Kaur PW7 and Bhura Singh PW8 corroborated each other inter se and also get corroboration from the medical evidence. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. given by appellant Gurmail Singh is only to save himself, his co-accused brothers and father. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the impugned judgment with their assistance. 11. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 7.2.2001 at 10.30 p.m. in Village Poohla. Statement Ex.PN of Harwinder Kaur PW7 was recorded by SI Kirpal Singh, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PN/2 came into existence on 8.2.2001 at 11.20 a.m. The police party, as alleged by the prosecution, met Harwinder Kaur PW7, when she was allegedly accompanied by Mukhtiar Singh, the elder brother of deceased Darshan Singh and Bhura Singh PW8, the father-in-law of the deceased. The presence of Mukhtiar Singh has also been mentioned in the police proceedings, wherein the Investigating Officer has stated, that Harwinder Kaur PW7, along with Mukhtiar Singh and Bhura Singh PW8 met them at the canal bridge, when they had gone for patrolling. 12. Harwinder Kaur PW7 in her testimony before the Court has stated, that her husband’s elder brother Mukhtiar Singh was living in Bathinda. 12. Harwinder Kaur PW7 in her testimony before the Court has stated, that her husband’s elder brother Mukhtiar Singh was living in Bathinda. She went to Bathinda to give him information. She reached there at 1.00 a.m. on 8.2.2001. Thereafter, she came back from Bathinda after arranging a conveyance and reached Village Poohla at about 11.00 a.m. The police officials met them at the canal bridge. She (PW7) has further stated, that she did not come back to Poohla with her husband’s elder brother (Mukhtiar Singh). This is a material contradiction in her statement with that what she has stated in FIR Ex.PN/2. Mukhtiar Singh not being Harwinder Kaur PW7 is further fortified, as the persons who identified the bodies of the deceased in Inquest Report Ex.PD are Bhura Singh PW8 and Sewa Singh. Even the statement of Mukhtiar Singh has not been recorded in the Inquest Report Ex.PD. There was no need for Harwinder Kaur PW7 to go to Bathinda in the middle of the night to inform Mukhtiar Singh, when she had two close relatives of her who had witnessed the occurrence i.e. Bhura Singh PW8 and Sewa Singh. It is clear from these material contradictions that the story of Harwinder Kaur PW7 going to Bathinda was only to cover up the delay in the lodging of the FIR. This delay in fact was being utilised by the complainant party for consultations and confabulations as to who to falsely implicate. It is after they made up their minds to falsely implicate Bikkar Singh son of Bachan Singh, Hakam Singh son of Bachan Singh and Bachan Singh son of Kabal Singh that Harwinder Kaur recorded her statement Ex.PN. 13. The conduct of the eye witnesses is very suspicious. They in fact did not witness the occurrence. Harwinder Kaur PW7 is the mother of deceased Darshan Singh. Bhura Singh PW8 is the father-in-law of deceased Darshan Singh and Sewa Singh is a close relative. None of them made any efforts to inform the Sarpanch or any respectable of the village regarding the occurrence. As per their version, Harwinder Kaur PW7 went to Bathinda on foot, which was 15 K.Ms. away, but did not go to the police station, which was at a distance of 2 K.Ms. from Village Poohla. 14. Further the testimony of Harwinder Kaur PW7 and Bhura Singh PW8 also does not inspire confidence. As per their version, Harwinder Kaur PW7 went to Bathinda on foot, which was 15 K.Ms. away, but did not go to the police station, which was at a distance of 2 K.Ms. from Village Poohla. 14. Further the testimony of Harwinder Kaur PW7 and Bhura Singh PW8 also does not inspire confidence. Harwinder Kaur PW7 has stated, that the house of appellant Gurmail Singh has only one door, which was closed. The learned trial Judge putting a question to this witness as to how she had seen the occurrence taking place, she replied that they peeped through the space which was there between the wooden planks of the door. Bhura Singh PW8 has stated, that the door of the house of appellant Gurmail Singh was open and they saw the occurrence while they were standing in the courtyard. Harwinder Kaur PW7 has further stated, that the house of appellant Gurmail Singh was at a distance of 200 Karams from the place where they were standing. She has stated, that it is correct that a Gurdwara was situated near the house of appellant Gurmail Singh. It is further correct that Gurbani was being recited at the Gurdwara. If we take into consideration that the witnesses were standing 200 karams i.e. about 1000 feet away from where the occurrence was taking place, it would not have been possible for the complainant party to hear the shrieks of Darshan Singh deceased from there. With the prayers being recited in the Gurdwara, which usually have loud speakers, it would not have been possible for the witnesses to hear the shrieks. 15. Bhura Singh PW8, the father-in-law of the deceased though standing in the courtyard and seeing his son-in-law being beaten, strangely did not intervene, nor did Sewa Singh, a close relative of the deceased, come forward to stop the fight. Bhura Singh PW8 has stated in his testimony before the Court, that apart from them, 20-25 other persons were also present in the house of appellant Gurmail Singh, who were seeing the occurrence while standing in the courtyard. Blows were given to Darshan Singh and Hamir Kaur alias Bhape for about five minutes. Neither did he (PW8), nor any other person intervene in order to rescue Darshan Singh. Blows were given to Darshan Singh and Hamir Kaur alias Bhape for about five minutes. Neither did he (PW8), nor any other person intervene in order to rescue Darshan Singh. This behaviour of Bhura Singh PW8 is not natural, especially when there were about 20-25 persons also standing and they were also just silent spectators to the occurrence. Surely all those persons, who were standing in the courtyard, would have intervened. Presence of Harwinder Kaur PW7 and Bhura Singh PW8 is doubtful. 16. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant Gurmail Singh has stated as under: - “ I am innocent. On the night of incident, I came back to my house from the field at about 9.30 p.m. where Darshan Singh (since deceased) was present under the influence of liquor with my wife Hamir Kaur alias Bhape. My children were also present in the house. I requested Darshan Singh to go away, but he instead of leaving the house, started raising quarrel with me. He picked up a Kasia and gave an injury on my fore-head. Out of fear, I ran away from the house. On hearing Rolla, people from Mohalla attracted to the spot, who were already dis-liking the visits of Darshan Singh to my wife. They felt annoyed and gave beating and brick bats injuries to Darshan Singh and Hamir Kaur alaias Bhape. I along with my brothers and father have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant party who are influential persons”. 17. Deceased Darshan Singh being present in the house of the appellants is not disputed. His body was recovered from the courtyard. The Investigating Officer SI Kirpal Singh PW9 has stated, that he recovered one bottle containing liquor to the extent of one half. It was taken into possession from inside the room. During his course of investigation, it came to light that deceased Darshan Singh had illicit relations with Hamir Kaur alias Bhape. The dead bodies of both Darshan Singh and Hamir Kaur alias Bhape were lying close to each other. They were lying in front of the room inside the house. Brickbats of various sizes were lying scattered near the dead bodies. 18. Deceased Darshan Singh was a Jat by caste and deceased Hamir Kaur alias Bhape was a Dalit. Dalits of the locality took offensive of Darshan Singh coming in the night to meet Hamir Kaur alias Bhape. They were lying in front of the room inside the house. Brickbats of various sizes were lying scattered near the dead bodies. 18. Deceased Darshan Singh was a Jat by caste and deceased Hamir Kaur alias Bhape was a Dalit. Dalits of the locality took offensive of Darshan Singh coming in the night to meet Hamir Kaur alias Bhape. It has come in evidence that the people had collected and brickbats were used, as they were lying scattered meaning that brickbats were used. Injuries on the person of the deceased are abrasions and lacerated wounds, which could be given by brickbats and dang blows. Appellant Gurmail Singh was armed with a Soti. It seems that due to grave and sudden provocation, appellant Gurmail Singh got infuriated and inflicted injuries with a Soti to both deceased Darshan Singh and Hamir Kaur alias Bhape, as he himself had been injured by deceased Darshan Singh, when he asked Darshan Singh to leave his house. Apart from him, it seems that the 20-25 persons present also gave brickbats blows to the deceased. 19. We are of the considered opinion, that appellants Bikkar Singh son of Bachan Singh, Hakam Singh son of Bachan Singh and Bachan Singh son of Kabal Singh had no role to play in the murder of Darshan Singh and Hamir Kaur alias Bhape. Gurmail Singh son of Bachan Singh husband of deceased Hamir Kaur alias Bhape was provoked by Darshan Singh and Hamir Kaur on seeing them together and in the heat of anger he gave Soti blows to both Darshan Singh and Hamir Kaur. 20. Appeal qua appellants Bikkar Singh, Hakam Singh and Bachan Singh is allowed, their conviction and sentence is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 21. Appellant Gurmail Singh is convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. With the above modification in conviction and sentence, appeal qua appellant Gurmail Singh is dismissed. ————————————