Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 105 (UTT)

SRIRAM v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2008-03-14

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2008
JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.7.2002, passed by the then Assistant Sessions Judge (First Fast Track Court), Roorkee District Haridwar in ST No. 68/1992, State Vs. Sriram and Others convicting and sentencing each of the accused appellants to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo for further three months S.I. Each of the appellants were also convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months u/s 323 r/w 34 I.P.C. However, appellant Pramod was acquitted u/s 307 I.P.C. and the other appellants namely Mohan Sriram and Shyam Lal were acquitted from the charges punishable u/s 307/34 I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that accused appellants threw garbage, etc. in the ‘gher’ of the complainant Ramnath. Seeing this on 14.11.1991 at about 2 p.m., the complainant Ramnath protested the said throwing of garbage to his ‘gher’. In retaliation to this, the accused appellants with a common intention came to the house of complainant equipped with conventional weapons. The accused Sriram and Mohan were having ‘laths’ in their hands, Shyamlal was having ‘saria’ in his hand whereas Pramod was having country made pistol in his hand. All the four appellants with a common intention to kill the complainant party assaulted them. The accused Pramod with an intention to kill Ramesh Chandra fired from his country made pistol upon him but he escaped from the said fire. The accused appellants Sriram, Mohan and Shyamlal with an intention to kill Ramnath and Ramesh Chandra, started assaulting them badly with the weapons possessed by them. When Pramod one of the members of the complainant party came at the place of incident to save Ramnath, he, too, was assaulted by the appellants. It is stated that the said incident was seen by Dharam Singh, Anand Prakash and Ramlal. Ramnath, Ramesh and Pramod (complainant party) sustained injuries in the said incident. They were immediately taken to the Roorkee Civil Hospital. Looking to the serious conditions of the injured Ramnath and Ramesh Chandra, the doctors of the Roorkee Civil Hospital referred them to Haridwar Civil Hospital for better treatment. Consequently, they were shifted to Hardwar Civil Hospital. Ramnath, Ramesh and Pramod (complainant party) sustained injuries in the said incident. They were immediately taken to the Roorkee Civil Hospital. Looking to the serious conditions of the injured Ramnath and Ramesh Chandra, the doctors of the Roorkee Civil Hospital referred them to Haridwar Civil Hospital for better treatment. Consequently, they were shifted to Hardwar Civil Hospital. The doctors of the Civil Hospital, Hardwar, looking to the serious conditions of the injured Ramesh Chandra, referred him to the Meerut Medical College, Meerut for better treatment. Ramesh Chandra was taken to Meerut Medical College. Ramnath remained admitted in the Civil Hospital, Hardwar and was discharged from the hospital on 16.11.1991. The injured Ramesh Chandra was operated on 15.11.1991 at Meerut Medical College but his life could not be saved and ultimately, he expired on 16.11.1991 in the Meerut Medical Hospital. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Ramesh Chandra was conducted on 17.11.1991 in the Civil Hospital, Meerut itself. In the meantime, Manoj Kumar, son the deceased Ramesh Chandra who is said to have been staying with the injured Ramnath at Civil Hospital, Hardwar, went to police station Manglore on 15.11.1991 to lodge the report of the incident. Before he could reach the police station Manglore, the accused appellants Sriram and Mohan met him on the way to the police station and threatened to kill him if he would report the matter to the police. Thereupon, the complainant Manoj Kumar went to the Roorkee Court where he filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. narrating the entire incident to the Magistrate who was having the jurisdiction of the area. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate directed the police to register the case and investigate the matter. The investigation was started immediately after lodging report on 16.11.1991 at the police station and the case was also converted under Section 304 I.P.C. at the police station due to the demise of the deceased Ramesh Chandra at the Meerut Medical College. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation submitted the chargesheet against the accused appellants. 3. After submission of the chargesheet, the accused appellant were committed to the court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate and the trial court after hearing the parties framed charges against the accused appellants. The accused appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried for the offences. 4. 3. After submission of the chargesheet, the accused appellant were committed to the court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate and the trial court after hearing the parties framed charges against the accused appellants. The accused appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried for the offences. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined Ramnath PW1 and Pramod Kumar PW3 who are said to be the injured eyewitnesses of the incident. Manoj Kumar PW4 is the informant of this case. He is the son of the deceased Ramesh Chandra. The prosecution also examined Dr. S.K. Srivastava PW9 who medically examined the injured persons at Roorkee Hospital and prepared the medical reports of all three injured persons. Dr. Pradeep Bharti PW5 conducted the operation on the injuries of deceased Ramesh at the Meerut Medical College, Meerut. Dr. R. Singh PW7, Medical Officer, Meerut Civil Hospital conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Ramesh Chandra. S.I. Netra Pal Singh PW10 is the Investigating Officer of the case. Shishupal Datt PW2, S.I. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma PW6 and S.I. Ved Prakash PW8 are the formal witnesses in this case. 5. The accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have denied all the averments made in the evidence and they have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case and the first information report has been lodged against them with false allegations. The appellants did not adduce the defence evidence in support of their case. 6. After appreciating the evidence, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated above. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that there is no dispute that Ramnath PW1 and Pramod Kumar PW3 sustained injuries on the date of the occurrence. It is not disputed that the deceased Ramesh Chandra died on 16.11.1991 due to the injuries sustained by him on the date and time of the occurrence. According to the prosecution evidence, the injured Ramnath PW1, Ramesh Chandra and Pramod Kumar PW3 were taken to the Civil Hospital, Roorkee where they were medically examined by Dr. S.K. Srivastava PW9. Ramnath PW1 was examined at about 3.35 pm. on 14.11.1991 and following injuries were found on his person: (i) L.W. 3 cm x 0.25 cm. According to the prosecution evidence, the injured Ramnath PW1, Ramesh Chandra and Pramod Kumar PW3 were taken to the Civil Hospital, Roorkee where they were medically examined by Dr. S.K. Srivastava PW9. Ramnath PW1 was examined at about 3.35 pm. on 14.11.1991 and following injuries were found on his person: (i) L.W. 3 cm x 0.25 cm. x scalp deep on left side of head at ante. Hair line. Kept U.O. (ii) L.W. 4 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep on left side of head 8 cm. above left ear. Kept U.O. (iii) L.W.6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on rt. Side of head, 6 cm above rt. ear. Kept U.O. (iv) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on outer aspect of left arm in middle. (v) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on back of left forearm in upper 1/3 portion. (vi) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on rt. forearm back in middle. (vii) Abrasion 2 cm x1 cm on medial side of rt. waist. (viii) Abraded contusion 6 cm x 5 cm on lower 1/3 part of rt. thigh anteriorly. The injury nos. 1 to 3 were kept under observation and X-ray was advised for the said injuries. The duration of the said injuries were found to be fresh and it was also opined that the injuries could have been caused by the blunt object. The Medical Officer prepared the report Ex. Ka. 11 at the time of the inspection of the injuries and further opined that the injuries sustained by Ramnath PW1 could have been caused at about 2 pm on 14.11.1991. Dr. S.K. Srivastava PW9 also medically examined the deceased Ramesh Chandra on 14.11.1991 at about 3.30 pm. and found following injuries: (i) L.W. 1 cm x 0.25 cm x scalp deep on left side of head, 10 cm. behind left eyebrow. Surrounded by swelling 10 cm x 8.0 cm Kept U.O. and adv. X-ray. (ii) Contusion 5 cm x 4 cm around left eye. Kept U.O. Both the injuries were kept under observation and the doctor has opined that the injuries could have been caused by the blunt object. Seeing the condition of the deceased Ramesh Chandra, he was referred to Hardwar Civil Hospital. The doctor further opined that the injuries could have been caused on 14.11.1991 at about 2 pm. Dr. Kept U.O. Both the injuries were kept under observation and the doctor has opined that the injuries could have been caused by the blunt object. Seeing the condition of the deceased Ramesh Chandra, he was referred to Hardwar Civil Hospital. The doctor further opined that the injuries could have been caused on 14.11.1991 at about 2 pm. Dr. S.K. Srivastava PW9 also examined Pramod Kumar PW3 at 3.40 pm. on 14.11.1991 and found following injuries: (i) Abrasion 17 cm x 1 cm on left side of chest extending to left side of abdomen. (ii) Abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm on dorsum of left little finger. According to the doctor, the injuries could have been caused on 14.11.1991 at about 2 pm by blunt weapons. The duration of injuries was found to be fresh. Thus, the medical evidence further corroborates that the above named injured persons sustained the injuries on 14.11.1991 at about 2 pm. The prosecution also examined the eyewitnesses and the injured witnesses as stated above. They have categorically stated that the injured sustained injuries on the date and time of the incident. It is established that the injuries sustained by the injuries and deceased were caused on the date of occurrence. 9. Now, I have to examine as to who is the author of the injuries on the person of the deceased as well as on the injured persons. The case rests upon the direct evidence and the prosecution in support of its case, examined Ramesh PW1 and Pramod Kumar PW3 who are the injured witnesses in this case. Both the witnesses have stated in their evidence that their ‘gher’ is adjoining to the house of the accused appellants. Some garbage, etc. was thrown in their ‘gher’. Seeing this, Ramnath PW1 objected for doing so. Thereupon, all the four accused appellants came at the place of incident with a common intention, having ‘lathis’, ‘sariya’ and a country made pistol in their hands. They assaulted Ramnath PW1 and Ramesh Chandra with the intention to kill them. Appellant Pramod, in furtherance of the common objection, fired from the country made pistol upon Ramesh Chandra but he escaped from the said fire. The appellants Sriram, Shyam Lal and Mohan assaulted the complainant party i.e. Ramnath and Ramesh Chandra with lathis and ‘sariya’ which they were possessing with them. Appellant Pramod, in furtherance of the common objection, fired from the country made pistol upon Ramesh Chandra but he escaped from the said fire. The appellants Sriram, Shyam Lal and Mohan assaulted the complainant party i.e. Ramnath and Ramesh Chandra with lathis and ‘sariya’ which they were possessing with them. When Pramod Kumar came to rescue Ramnath and Ramesh he, too, was beaten by the accused appellants. All the three injured namely, Ramnath, Ramesh and Pramod sustained injuries in the incident and thereafter they were taken to the Roorkee Hospital. Ramnath and Ramesh Chandra were referred to the Civil Hospital, Hardwar. Ramnath PW1 was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Hardwar and he remained there till 16.11.1991 whereas the injured Ramesh Chandra was referred by the Civil Hospital, Hardwar to the Medical College, Meerut for better treatment. It is also in the evidence that he was operated there and later on, he succumbed to his injuries on 16.11.1991. 10. Both the injured eyewitnesses namely, Ramnath PW1 and Pramod Kumar PW3 have narrated the entire incident. The trial court has minutely scrutinized the evidence of all the witnesses and found them consistent and reliable. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution. After considering the entire evidence, in toto, the trial court found the evidence to be implicitly truthful and reliable. Though the presence of the witnesses was attempted to be shown as doubtful. I do not find any reason to accept this plea. Their presence at the place of occurrence was explained. Their evidence cannot be thrownout as unreliable and tainted only because they are related to the deceased persons or, because they themselves are the only inured eyewitnesses of the incident. It was attempted to be shown that the evidence of both the eyewitnesses i.e. Ramnath and Pramod Kumar, as doubtful, as no independent witness was produced in support of their case. It is a settled position of law that it is not always necessary to multiply the evidence of the incident on the same point. It has to be seen what is the quality of the witnesses. It is quality to the evidence and not the quantity which is required. It is a settled position of law that it is not always necessary to multiply the evidence of the incident on the same point. It has to be seen what is the quality of the witnesses. It is quality to the evidence and not the quantity which is required. If the evidence available on record is otherwise satisfactory in nature and can be said to be trustworthy, then increase in the number of witnesses would not be required further. It cannot be lost of the sight that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the court, especially, in criminal cases because criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are harassed a lot. In the instant case, the incident took place in the year 1991 and the sessions trial started in the year 1992 whereas the evidence of the witnesses were recorded in the year 2000 after a lapse of nine years of the incident. It cannot be lost of the sight that sometimes the witnesses are being threatened and intimidated and, at the top of all, they are subjected to unnecessary and lengthy cross-examination. So due to above reasons, the witnesses avoid to come to the court. If the evidence of the prosecution is found credible and cogent and the other circumstances also lend credence, the evidence of such witnesses cannot be discarded only on the ground that other available witnesses had not been produced before the court. It is also pertinent to mention in this case that Ramnath PW1 and Pramod Kumar PW3 are the injured witnesses in this case. They have sustained the injuries in the said incident and one of them i.e. Ramesh Chandra died later on. There is no doubt that Ramnath PW1 and Pramod Kumar PW3 sustained the injuries in the same incident in which Ramesh Chandra died due to the injuries sustained by him at the time of incident. The presence of the injured witnesses cannot be doubted at the place of incident. They have narrated the meticulous details of the incident in their evidence. The defence counsel has cross-examined the said injured witnesses at length but nothing could be elicited from their evidence to discredit their testimony. It is a settled position of law that an injured eyewitness stands on a higher pedestal than an ordinary witness. They have narrated the meticulous details of the incident in their evidence. The defence counsel has cross-examined the said injured witnesses at length but nothing could be elicited from their evidence to discredit their testimony. It is a settled position of law that an injured eyewitness stands on a higher pedestal than an ordinary witness. It is also well settled principle of law that the testimony of an injured witness is sufficient to base the conviction and no further corroboration is required. The presence of the injured witness cannot be discarded lightly. There is no doubt about the presence of the injured witnesses at the time of the incident. The testimony of injured witnesses has its own relevance and efficacy. {See Narendra Nath Khaware Vs. Parasnath Khaware and others 2003 SCC (Cri) 1144 and State of U.P. Vs Kishan Chand and others 2004 SCC (Cri) 2013}. 11. It has come in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Ramnath PW1, that other persons of the locality came at the place of incident, though he denied this fact during the course of the evidence that he had stated so to the Investigating Officer. He has stated in his evidence that Dharam Singh, Anand Prakash and Ramlal also intervened in the melee to save injured persons and there were so many houses adjoining to the place of incident. It was attempted to be shown that the prosecution could have adduced independent witnesses to corroborate the evidence of the injured witnesses. It is pertinent to mention here that during the trial of the case, an application was given by the prosecutor before the trial court that Anand Prakash and Dharam Singh have been won over by the prosecution and they were discharged. This fact was not disputed before me by the learned counsel for the defence. The only witness who is said to have not been examined was Ramlal and, he was also discharged by the prosecution on the ground that Ramlal is the brother of Ramnath PW1. If the evidence of the injured witnesses is found credible and cogent by the trial court, it need not be multiplied by other witnesses. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Komal and others Vs. State of U.P. 2002 SCC (Cri) 1600 has held as under: “11. If the evidence of the injured witnesses is found credible and cogent by the trial court, it need not be multiplied by other witnesses. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Komal and others Vs. State of U.P. 2002 SCC (Cri) 1600 has held as under: “11. Learned counsel next contended that though, according to the statements of witnesses, some villagers had arrived at the place of occurrence when the members of the prosecution partly were begin assaulted and they intervened in the matter, none of them has been examined in the case on hand. In our view, non-examination of these witnesses by itself would not affect the veracity of the prosecution case when the evidence of PWs 2 and 4, the two injured eye witnesses who had received multiple injuries, has been found to be trustworthy and their evidence is corroborate by the informant PW5 and supported by medical evidence as well as objective finding to the investigation officer.” 12. It has further been held in Babu Ram Vs. State of U.P. 2002 SCC (Cri) 1400 as under: “7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Ram Autar, an independent eye witness present at the scene of occurrence according to the prosecution case and a government servant has not been examined, and therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. It is settled laue that non-examination of an eyewitness cannot be pressed into service like a ritualistic formula for discarding the prosecution case with a stroke of the pen. An effort should be made at appreciating the worth of such evidence as has been adduced. If the evidence coming from the mouth of the eye witnesses examined in the case is found to be trustworthy and worth being relied on so as to form a safe basis for recording a finding of guilt of the accused persons then non-examination of yet another witness who would have merely repeated the same story as has already been narrated by other reliable witnesses would not cause any dent or infirmity in the prosecution case. In the case at hand we additionally find from the testimony of Ashrafi Lal that in spite of being a government servant and not involved in local village disputes he is afraid of deposing against the accused persons and there is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the State that Ram Autar if tendered in the witnesses box would have followed the same track as was chosen by Ashrafi Lal P.W.3.” 13. In view of the above, it was not obligatory upon the prosecution to multiply the witnesses on the same point if the witnesses of the prosecution were found credible and cogent. 14. If was further attempted to be shown that the evidence of the injured witnesses is doubtful on the ground that they are related to the deceased and also related with each other. It is a settled position of law that any person even though he is related to the deceased or the injured, he is a competent witness under the provision of the Indian Evidence Act. Merely being a related witness, his evidence cannot be discarded solely on the ground of being related with the victim. The court has to appreciate the evidence on its merits as to whether the evidence of the witnesses is credible or cogent. There is no rule of law or prudence which requires that the evidence of a close relation must be discarded for the simple reason that they are related to each other. 15. By now, it is also well settled principle of law that animosity is a double edge weapon. It cuts both sides. It can be a ground for false implication and also a ground for assault. Just because the witnesses are related to the deceased or other injured persons, their testimonies could not be discarded, if otherwise, their testimonies inspire confidence. In the present case, they are natural witnesses of the incident. Similarly being relatives, it would be their endeavour to see that the real culprits be punished and normally they would not implicate wrong persons in the crime, so as to allow the real culprit to escape unpunished. 16. The above proposition of law was settled in Masalti Vs. State of U.P. AIR. 1965 SC 202, this Court observed: “14. Similarly being relatives, it would be their endeavour to see that the real culprits be punished and normally they would not implicate wrong persons in the crime, so as to allow the real culprit to escape unpunished. 16. The above proposition of law was settled in Masalti Vs. State of U.P. AIR. 1965 SC 202, this Court observed: “14. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of artisan or interested witnesses. The Mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it’s partisan would invariable lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it’s partisan cannot be accepted as correct.” Speaking through Vivian Bose, J., It was observed : (AIR p. 366): “25. We are unable to agree with the learned judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the facts of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in – Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1952 SC 54 (AIR at p.59). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel.” 17. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) Page 135, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “8. We may also observe that the ground that the witnesses being close relatives and consequently, being partisan witnesses, should not be relied upon, has no substance. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) Page 135, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “8. We may also observe that the ground that the witnesses being close relatives and consequently, being partisan witnesses, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1953 SC 364 in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses.” Thus, the evidence of injured witnesses cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are merely related to each other or they are related to the deceased. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. Thus the appellants were falsely implicated after due deliberation. Learned A.G.A. refuted the contention. It is a settled position of law that merely on the ground that there was a delay in lodging the F.I.R., prosecution evidence cannot be discarded. It is also a settled position of law that the plausible explanation set forward by the prosecution has to be examined by the court and if the court comes to the conclusion that the explanation submitted by the prosecution is satisfactory then it cannot be held that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is fatal to the prosecution. Even in the absence of direct evidence there may be circumstances appearing on record which provide reasonable explanation for the delay. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170 has observed as follows: “24. Counsel for the State submitted that the delay in lodging the first information report in such cases is immaterial. The proposition is too broadly stated to merit acceptance. It is no doubt true that mere delay in lodging the first information report is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the court must take notice. The proposition is too broadly stated to merit acceptance. It is no doubt true that mere delay in lodging the first information report is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the court must take notice. This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case, and in a given case the court may be satisfied that the delay in lodging the report has been sufficiently explained. In the light of the totality of the evidence, the court of fact has to consider whether the delay in lodging the report adversely affects the case of the prosecution. That is a matter of appreciation of evidence. There may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the delay. Even in the absence of direct explanation there may be circumstances appearing on record which provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. There are cases where much time is consumed in taking the injured to the hospital for medical aid and, therefore, the witnesses find no time to lodge the report promptly. There may also be cases where an account of fear and threats, witnesses may avoid going to the police station, mode of conveyance available, are all factors which have a bearing on the question of delay in lodging of the report. It is also possible to conceive of cases where the victim and the members of his or her family belong to such a strata of society that they may not even be aware of their right to report the matter to the police and seek legal action, nor was any such advice available to them. In the case of sexual offences there is another consideration which may weigh in the mind of the court i.e. the initial hesitation of the victim to report the matter to the police which may affect her family life and family’s reputation. Very often in such cases only after considerable persuasion the prosecutrix may be persuaded to disclose the true facts. There are also cases where the victim may choose to suffer the ignominy rather than to disclose the true facts which may cost a stigma on her for the rest of her life. Very often in such cases only after considerable persuasion the prosecutrix may be persuaded to disclose the true facts. There are also cases where the victim may choose to suffer the ignominy rather than to disclose the true facts which may cost a stigma on her for the rest of her life. These are cases where the initial hesitation of the prosecutrix to disclose the true facts may provide a good explanation for the delay in lodging the report. In the ultimate analysis, what is the effect of delay in lodging the report with the police is a matter of appreciation of evidence, and the court must consider the delay in the background of the facts and circumstances of each case. Different cases have different facts and it is the totality of evidence and the impact that it has on the mind of the court that is important. No straitjacket formula can be evolved in such matters, and each case must rest on its own facts. It is settled law that however similar the circumstances, facts in one case cannot be used as a precedent to determine the conclusion on the facts in another. (See Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad 1.) Thus mere delay in lodging of the report may not by itself be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but the delay has to be considered in the background of the facts and circumstances in each case and is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the court of fact.” 19. In the instant case, Manoj Kumar PW4 who is the informant of this case and son of the deceased Ramesh Chadnra was looking after the injured Ramnath in the Civil Hospital, Hardwar. He went to lodge the report from Hardwar to police station, Manglore. But he could not reach the police station due to intervention of the appellants Sriram and Mohan. When he was on the way to the police station the appellants met him and threatened to kill him if he would lodge the report. Thereafter, informant Manoj Kumar PW4 immediately went to the Roorkee Court, where he submitted an application under Section 156(3) to the Magistrate concerned about the incident. The Magistrate immediately passed an order and directed the police to register and investigate the matter. The police immediately on 16.11.1991 lodged the report. Thereafter, informant Manoj Kumar PW4 immediately went to the Roorkee Court, where he submitted an application under Section 156(3) to the Magistrate concerned about the incident. The Magistrate immediately passed an order and directed the police to register and investigate the matter. The police immediately on 16.11.1991 lodged the report. It is in the evidence that the injured persons sustained the injuries on 14.11.1991 and the informant Manoj Kumar went to lodge the report on the next date i.e. on 15.11.1991. It was submitted that no attempt was made to lodge report with regard to the incident either on 14.11.1991 at ‘Landora’ where a Police Check Post is located or, at Roorkee in the Gangnahar police station or even at Hardwar where police station is situated near the Civil Hospital when the injured persons were brought from Landora to Hardwar for medical treatment In regard to above, the prosecution has stated that there were three injured persons and the family members of the injured were trying to rescue their lives. Hence, they took the injured to the hospital immediately. Inspite of providing immediate medical aid, one of the injured persons lost his life in the said incident on 16.11.1991 even after providing him the best treatment at the medical college, Meerut. It is also evident that the first priority of the family members of the injured would be to provide the medical aid to the injured at the hospital instead of taking course of legal aid. In the natural consequence of such phenomena, the injured were taken to the Civil Hospital, Roorkee. The incident took place at about 2 pm on 14.11.1991 and they were taken to the Roorkee Hospital within a period of one and a half hour at Roorkee. There is a prompt medical report. The doctor at Roorkee Hospital examined the injured persons and found the conditions of Ramnath and Ramesh Chandra precarious and critical. They were referred to the Civil Hospital, Hardwar for better treatment. In such a situation, the plight of the family members of the injured could be well assessed and they would naturally try to save the lives of the injured who are in critical and precarious condition. Naturally, some of the family members would accompany the injured persons to the hospital. In such a situation, the plight of the family members of the injured could be well assessed and they would naturally try to save the lives of the injured who are in critical and precarious condition. Naturally, some of the family members would accompany the injured persons to the hospital. When both the injured were taken to the Hardwar hospital and doctor admitted Ramnath who was discharged on 16.11.1991 whereas the other injured Ramesh Chandra whose condition was found further critical, was referred to Meerut Medical College where his operation of the head injury was conducted but his life could not be saved. He ultimately died on 16.11.1991. Thus, the plight of the family members could be well appreciated when three persons of their family with injuries at different places and, in this situation, they would naturally like to save the lives of these injured persons. This would be their first priority instead of taking the legal recourse. When the injured persons were treated in the hospital, Manoj Kumar, one of the family members tried to lodge the report on 15.11.1991 but he was prevented by the appellants, as such, he filed an application on 15.11.1991 before the Magistrate who was having the jurisdiction of the police station. Thereafter, the report was lodged by the police and the police came to know that deceased Ramesh Chandra has died at the medical college, Meerut. Thereafter, the case was converted under Section 304 I.P.C. In these circumstances, the delay has properly been explained by the prosecution. I have gone through the findings recorded by the trial court and I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court with regard to the explanation for delay in lodging of the report. 20. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the prosecution has failed miserably to prove the motive of the crime. It was, further, contended that the motive of the commission of the offence which has been alleged in the prosecution evidence is not credible and cogent. The learned A.G.A. refuted the contention and supported the findings recorded by the learned trial court. Perusal of the record reveals that it is in the evidence of the prosecution that on 14.11.1991 at about 2 pm when Ramnath PW1 was at his ‘gher’, he found some garbage and soil on his ‘gher’. The learned A.G.A. refuted the contention and supported the findings recorded by the learned trial court. Perusal of the record reveals that it is in the evidence of the prosecution that on 14.11.1991 at about 2 pm when Ramnath PW1 was at his ‘gher’, he found some garbage and soil on his ‘gher’. Seeing this, he protested the said throwing of the garbage, etc. whereupon the accused appellants assaulted the injured persons as well as the deceased. The prosecution has shown a specific motive for the commission of the offence. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the motive as indicated by the prosecution is not plausible. He has further pointed out that it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses wherein they have statedthat the said garbage was thrown on the ‘gher’, one or two days prior to the incident and there cannot be a cause of action after two or three days. It was also submitted that there was no enmity in between the parties and there was no sudden cause to assault the injured persons and the deceased. The learned counsel for the defence could not demonstrate me that there is any whisper in the evidence, that the said garbage was seen by Ramnath PW1 or any of the persons prior to the date of incident. There is no effective cross-examination on this point. But it is evident that the garbage was thrown on the ‘gher’ of the injured persons. I have gone through the evidence of the witnesses in this regard with the help of the counsels of the parties and I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court. The evidence as regard to the motive is credible and cogent. 21. It is a settled position of law that when the witnesses of the occurrence consistently support the prosecution case, the question of motive lost its importance. In order to bring the guilt of accused, it is not always necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive. The existence of motive is only one of the circumstances to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the evidence of the witness appears to be truthful, convincing, credible and cogent, failure to prove the motive is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The existence of motive is only one of the circumstances to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the evidence of the witness appears to be truthful, convincing, credible and cogent, failure to prove the motive is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is well settled position of law that establishment of motive is not sine qua non for proving the prosecution case. In Baboolalo Vs. State of U.P. 2001 SCC (Cri) Page 1484, the deceased was sitting inside the teashop of one Abdul Nabi. On the opposite side of road, there was a sweetmeat shop and all the accused were sitting inside it. As the radio being played on a high pitch, an exchange of words took place between those who were sitting in the teashop and the accused. The accused threatened PW1 and others for raising this petty issue. A little later, the deceased reached there and on coming to know of the development of the incident, he expressed his resentment at the incident reaching that range on such a petty issue. On this, the accused moved forward with a pistol accompanied by the second accused and another person with daggers in their hands and fired upon the deceased. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: “8. Learned counsel rightly contended that on such a petty quarrel, no sensible person would have used such a lethal weapon and killed the victim. How the mind of an assailant reacted is not possible to be fathomed from a detached reflexion.” As pointed out by this Court in Nathuni Yadav V. State of Bihar 1998 SCC (Cri) 992: “Many a murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailant.” 22. In the case of Thaman Kumar Vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh 2003 SCC (Cri) Page 1362, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “18. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailant.” 22. In the case of Thaman Kumar Vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh 2003 SCC (Cri) Page 1362, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “18. Sri Sushil Kumar has drawn our attention to certain findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and has urged that he had rightly given benefit of doubt to the appellants and the High Court committed manifest error of law in reversing the aforesaid findings and convicting and sentencing the appellants while hearing an appeal against acquittal. The learned counsel has urged that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of the appellants to commit the crime. It is true that the only witness examined on the point of motive, namely PW7 Sardara Singh, who is the brother of the deceased, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. In his statement under Section 161 CrPC he had said that the deceased used to get commission for bringing customers to the guest house and he owed about Rs. 42,000 in that account and some dispute had taken place with the owner when he had demanded his money. However, in his statement in Court he denied to have given any such statement. There is no such principle or rule of law that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive for commission of the crime, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. Where the ocular evidence is found to be trustworthy and reliable and finds corroboration from the medical evidence, a finding of guilt can safely be recorded even if the motive for the commission of the crime has not been proved. In State of H.P. v. Jeet Singh 1999 SCC (Cri) 539 it was held that no doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no offence was committed if the prosecution failed to prove the precise of the accused to commit it, as it is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended. In Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar 1998 SCC (Cri) 992 it was held that motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution as one cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do particular act and such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionately grave to do grave crimes. It was further held that many a murder have been committed without any known or prominent motive and it is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the absence of any evidence on the point of motive cannot have any such impact so as to discard the other reliable evidence available on record which unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused.” 23. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Yunus Vs. State of M.P. 2003 (1) SCC Page 425 that: “The prosecution in the present case has failed to prove the motive. Failure to prove motive for crime in our view is of no consequence. The role of the accused persons in the crime stands clearly established. The ocular evidence is very clear and convincing in this case. The illegal acts of the accused persons have resulted in the death of a young boy of 18 years. It is also well settled law that establishment of motive is not sine quo non for proving the prosecution case.” 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court has affirmed the above views in its latest decision of Bhimapa Chandappa Hosamani Vs. State of Karnataka 2007 (1) SCC (Cri) 456. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Ramkrushna Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 AIR SCW 3134 that: “18. The High Court might not have dealt with the question of motive elaborately but when the presence of the appellant with Balram has been established, motive takes a back seat. Appellant must have come to the place of occurrence. He came with a knife. The knife injuries were found. Even if the prosecution has not been able to establish as to the exact role played by each of the accused, the fact that both the accused had common intention to commit the crime stood established. Submissions of the learned counsel for the State in this behalf are of some significance. The knife injuries were found. Even if the prosecution has not been able to establish as to the exact role played by each of the accused, the fact that both the accused had common intention to commit the crime stood established. Submissions of the learned counsel for the State in this behalf are of some significance. The learned Trial Judge as also the Trial Court cannot be said to have committed any error in relying upon the testimony of the PW3 in part. It is our opinion permissible in law.” 25. I have gone through the entire judgment of the trial court and I am of the view that the trial court has rightly found the prosecution evidence truthful and reliable. I do not find any fault with the approach of the learned trial court in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution. The injured witnesses are the eyewitnesses of the incident and they have narrated the entire story of the prosecution meticulously in all the respect. Thus, there is convincing evidence against the accused appellants. If the presence of the witnesses at the spot and the participation of the accused appellants in the incident are established, the motive for commission of the offence takes a back seat. Thus, I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 26. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there are certain contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out certain contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses particularly, with regard to taking the deceased Ramesh Chandra and the other injured persons from the place of occurrence to the hospital. The learned AGA refuted the contention and contended that the variations and the contradictions and exaggerations as pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant are natural and such contradictions are bound to come in the truthful testimonies of the witnesses. The trial court in its judgment has dealt this aspect in detail. According to the learned trial court, the contradictions pointed out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were not material to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. It is pertinent to mention here that the incident took place in the year 1991 and the eye-witnesses were examined before the court in the year 2000 i.e. after a lapse of about nine years. It is pertinent to mention here that the incident took place in the year 1991 and the eye-witnesses were examined before the court in the year 2000 i.e. after a lapse of about nine years. It is unrealistic to accept a witness to be a human tape recorder. The witness cannot be accepted to pose as a photographic memory for such a long period and recalls the details of the incident. The human memory can be retained to a particular period and it also depends upon the man to man. It cannot be accepted from a witness who had been examined after a lapse of time as indicated above to recall the details of an incident. If the contradictions are there, it does not affect the prosecution story. The court should not take into account such minor discrepancies which are bound to come in the truthful testimonies of the witnesses. The normal discrepancies or contradictions in the evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always their however honest and truthful a witness may be. Thus, the discrepancies and contradictions as pointed out by the defence are of no consequence. It is pertinent to mention here that when a witness appears before the court, sometimes he may not stand the test of cross-examination because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by a skillful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. Whenever a rustic or an illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalances and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored (See Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar 2002 (6) SCC Page 81). 27. I have gone through the entire evidence and contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. I do not find any fault in the approach of the learned trial court in discarding the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants at the trial stage. 28. State of Bihar 2002 (6) SCC Page 81). 27. I have gone through the entire evidence and contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. I do not find any fault in the approach of the learned trial court in discarding the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants at the trial stage. 28. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the genesis of the offence was not proved by the prosecution and the prosecution had miserably failed to discharge its burden to prove the case against the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The learned AGA refuted the contention. As I have pointed out in the preceding paragraphs that the witnesses have totally corroborated the factum of the incident. Both the witnesses i.e. Ramnath and Pramod Kumar are injured witnesses. The eyewitnesses are consistent and clear. Their evidence is credible and cogent. The trial court found the evidence to be implicitly truthful and reliable though the presence of the eyewitnesses was attempted to be shown as doubtful. I do not find any reason to accept the plea as their presence at the place of occurrence was explained and their evidence cannot be thrown out as unrealistic or tainted. The manner of the assault as described by the prosecution, the weapon which the accused appellants were holding at the time of the incident and the manner of the injuries caused by the accused appellants upon the injured are consistent. The evidence of the witnesses is further corroborated by the medical evidence. I have gone through the entire oral evidence and found whatever was stated by way of clarifications that cannot be termed as improvements or contradictions. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the eyewitnesses cannot be believed for so many reasons, main among them is that they made improvements in their version to suit the prosecution case. I have gone through the entire evidence and noticed that though there are some marginal variations on certain aspect in between the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the evidence given in the court. Such variations cannot be dubbed as improvements made with any sinister motive. The witnesses have made certain clarifications during the course of the evidence. Such variations cannot be dubbed as improvements made with any sinister motive. The witnesses have made certain clarifications during the course of the evidence. I have scrutinized so called improvements from that angle and I am satisfied that the witnesses had basically remained at the same position which they have stated in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The evidence of the witnesses has proved the genesis of the offence, as such; I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 29. The prosecution story has further get credence due to the prompt medical report in the matter. The incident occurred at about 2 pm, on 14.11.1991 and the deceased was taken to Roorkee Civil Hospital forthwith. The distance between the place of occurrence and Roorkee Court was about 20 km. The deceased Ramesh Chandra was examined at 3.30 pm the injured Ramnath was examined at 3.35 pm and Pramod Kumar was examined at 3.40 pm on the same day i.e. on 14.11.1991. Thus, there is a prompt medical report indicating the injuries on the person of the injured and the deceased person, which has already been mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This further corroborates the evidence of the prosecution. 30. On a conspectus of various relevant features of this case including the genesis; the nature of the incident; the nature of injuries caused by the accused appellants at the time of occurrence, it cannot be concluded from the prosecution evidence or from any probability arising from the record that the accused appellants had been falsely implicated in this case. After going through the same, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of the prosecution witnesses. I am completely in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court and I find that the prosecution has been able to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellants. 31. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the prosecution has established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants. I find that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court. 31. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the prosecution has established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants. I find that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court. The accused appellants are liable to be convicted and sentenced as awarded by the trial court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 32. Let the Lower Court Record be remitted back for compliance. Compliance report be submitted within three months from the date of receipt of order.