JUDGMENT : B.P. Ray, J. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 13.09.1993 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S.T. Case No. 359/34 of 1992 convicting the Appellant u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life. No separate sentence is awarded against him under Sections 323/324 of I.P.C. in view of the sentence awarded for life. The Appellant in this appeal challenges his conviction u/s 302, I.P.C. and the sentence passed thereunder. 2. The Appellant and five others were put to trial. Besides the Appellant two accused persons, namely; Khageswar and Baman were convicted u/s 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to period already undergone. They have not preferred any appeal against their conviction and sentence. Other three accused persons viz. Dhusa, Banchhu and Bhaju were acquitted of all the charges. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Radhanath Jena (P.W.4) had taken lease of a river ghat of Baitarani to ply the boat in between villages Agira and Kantabania in the year 1991. On 20.09.1991 there was a Sunia Puja of the deity Sanla Thakurani at village Sanla Kantabania situated by the side of the river Baitarani. Large number of people had gathered to worship deity. At about 5.00 P.M., P.W. 4 and others came in a boat to the ghat of Kantabania. At that time the accused persons and others demanded a chanda of Rs. 100/-from P.W.4 for the aforesaid Puja, but P.W. 4 refused to pay such huge amount and agreed to pay Rs. 20/- to which the accused persons did not agree. When the passengers on the boat insisted to ply the boat as the evening was approaching, then P.W. 4 asked his brother to release the boat. At that time there was quarrel and they assaulted P.W.4 and others. When one Basanta arrived at the place and tried to pacify the matter he was stabbed with a knife by accused Jatin and other accused persons also assaulted him as a result of which he died at the spot. P.W.4 and others were also assaulted and fled away from the place to the other side of the river. On the next day P.W. 4 lodged an F.I.R. before the O.I.C. Nandipada Police Station in the district of Keonjhar. P.W.4 and others were also assaulted and fled away from the place to the other side of the river. On the next day P.W. 4 lodged an F.I.R. before the O.I.C. Nandipada Police Station in the district of Keonjhar. The O.I.C. of the said police station sent the injured for medical examination and also sent the F.I.R., Ext. 1, to the O.I.C. Korai P.S. in view of the jurisdiction. In the meantime, P.W. 6 reported the matter to the Police of Korai P.S. at the spot on which the police of Korai P.S. drew up a plain paper F.I.R. (Ext. 7) and took up the investigation and thereafter registered P.S. Case No. 129 of 1991. During investigation the I.O. made inquest over the dead body, examined witnesses, sent other injured persons for medical examination, prepared spot map, seized the blood stained sand and sent the dead body for the postmortem examination to the S.D. Hospital, Jajpur, seized the wearing apparels and other articles of the deceased and examined other witnesses and after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused persons for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 324 of I.P.C. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and proved several documents which were marked as Exts., while the defence has examined one witness and produced no document in evidence. 5. The plea of the accused persons is that of complete denial. Their further plea is that the informants assaulted the accused persons for which there was a counter case bearing S.T. No. 286/92 for which they have been implicated in this false case. 6. P.W. 1 and P.W.3 are post -occurrence witnesses P.W.2 speaks nothing about the occurrence, P.W. 4 was informant and also eye witness to the occurrence, P.W. 5 is an injured and eye witness to the occurrence, P.W. 6 is another injured-informant and eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 7 speaks nothing about the occurrence, P.W. 8 is an independent witness, P.W. 9 is a witness to the inquest, P. Ws. 10 and 11 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, P.W. 12 is a constable, who accompanied the dead body for P.M. examination. P.W 13 is a Doctor, who conducted the P.M. examination on the dead body of Basanta, P.W. 14 is another doctor who examined P. Ws. 10 and 11 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, P.W. 12 is a constable, who accompanied the dead body for P.M. examination. P.W 13 is a Doctor, who conducted the P.M. examination on the dead body of Basanta, P.W. 14 is another doctor who examined P. Ws. 4 and 5, P. Ws. 15 and 16 are the investigating officer in this case. 7. The Appellant assails the impugned order of conviction on various grounds, namely: i) Witnesses examined by the prosecution are all of partisan. ii) There was delay in lodging F.I.R. iii) Delay in dispatch of F.I.R. iv) There are two F.I.R., the latter one is not acceptable in law. v) There are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which render the same unreliable. vi) Prosecution has not explained the injuries on the accused persons. vii) There was previous enmity. 8. The first thing which needs to be determined is whether the deceased met a homicidal death. P.W.13 is the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination has given his report under Ext.4. Though the witness (P.W.13) has deposed in Court that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the death was homicidal. But the same have not been mentioned in the report under Ext.4. From this, it is contended by the defence that no culpability can be attached to the Appellant for causing death of the deceased. In order to appreciate this point the evidence of P. Ws. 4, 5, 6, 8, 11 and 13 are to be scrutinized.P. Ws. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 11 claimed to have seen the occurrence. P.W.4 in his evidence has deposed that the accused Jatin gave a stabbing blow on the left side lower abdomen of the deceased-Basanta with a knife and the deceased died at the spot. P.W.5 has also given evidence that Jatadhari (who is also known as Jatin) stabbed Basanta on his abdomen with a pointed knife. Similar is the evidence of other witnesses. The inquest report, Ext.2, discloses that the deceased had received injuries on his abdomen.P. Ws. 4, 6 and 8 have categorically deposed that due to assault the deceased Basanta died at the spot. P.W.13 in his report under Ext.4 has mentioned that there was one penetrating injury on left side of abdomen wall opposite lumber region, elliptical in shape, the whole thickness of the abdomen wall was evolved. 4, 6 and 8 have categorically deposed that due to assault the deceased Basanta died at the spot. P.W.13 in his report under Ext.4 has mentioned that there was one penetrating injury on left side of abdomen wall opposite lumber region, elliptical in shape, the whole thickness of the abdomen wall was evolved. On dissection he found that the peritoneal cavity contained huge amount of blood with clots, perforation of small intestine and spleen injury with profuse bleeding. He has further opined that cause of death was due to profuse haemorrhage and injury to the spleen and small intestine resulting shock and death. If the evidence, that the deceased was assaulted on his abdomen by a knife, that he died at the spot, that at the inquest injury was found on the abdomen and in course of post mortem one penetrating injury was found on the left side abdomen causing perforation of small intestine and spleen, are considered collectively, the conclusion is irresistible that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the death was homicidal. P.W.13 in his cross-examination has mentioned that he assessed the injuries as ante mortem in nature. In such circumstances, mere absence of the endorsement that the injuries were ante mortem and the death was homicidal is inconsequential. Failure to mention their: in express word would not dislodge the conclusion. 9. The next point for determination is as to who are the authors of the crime. In order to prove the accusation the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P. Ws. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 11.P. Ws. 4 and 5 are not only witnesses to the occurrence, but also both were injured having received the injuries in the same transaction.P. Ws. 4 and 5 unequivocally deposed that Jatin assaulted Basanta by a knife on his abdomen.P. Ws.6 and 8 have also stated in their evidence that Jatin assaulted the deceased Basanta by a knife. 10. However, the evidence of P. Ws.6 and 8 with regard to assault on the deceased by the accused are contradictory to their previous statement recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. The contradiction has been proved through the Investigating Officer, P.W.15, as regards the assault on the deceased. Therefore, their evidence cannot be accepted. 10. However, the evidence of P. Ws.6 and 8 with regard to assault on the deceased by the accused are contradictory to their previous statement recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. The contradiction has been proved through the Investigating Officer, P.W.15, as regards the assault on the deceased. Therefore, their evidence cannot be accepted. Though P.W.11 deposed to have seen the occurrence, but his evidence is contradictory to his earlier statement, where he had stated that he heard about the ? occurrence. In view of the material contradictions, the evidence of P. Ws.6, 8 and 11 so far as the same implicates the Appellant to the assault on the deceased cannot be accepted. P. Ws. 4 and 5 both have been cross-examined in extenso, but their credibility has not been shaken in any manner. 11. It is well settled in law that relationship itself is not a ground to discard the evidence or disbelieve the witness. Merely because the witness is a relation of the deceased, he cannot be branded as an untruthful witness. It is contended that due to close relationship propensity to implicate as many persons as possible cannot be ruled out. True it is that the relation of the deceased some times implicates some more persons than those who have actually taken part in the crime. But because of their relationship no witness would spare the real assailant and implicate others who are not involved. Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether the witnesses to the occurrence are truthful or not. 12. The dispute between the parties arose from the demand of 'Chanda' for celebration of Sanlasundari Thakurani Yatra which was going on the date of occurrence near the river bank. Admittedly, P.W.4 was plying boat in the river ghat. At 4 to 5 P.M. while he was to ply the boat the accused persons demanded Rs. 100/-as 'Chanda' to which he expressed his inability. When P.W.4 tried to release the boat to leave the ghat accused persons protested. At that time the deceased-Basanta reached there. The Appellant shouted that he belongs to the opponent group and gave a stabbing blow on his left side abdomen with a knife. When the deceased cried for water, the other accused persons also assaulted him. When P.W.4 tried to release the boat to leave the ghat accused persons protested. At that time the deceased-Basanta reached there. The Appellant shouted that he belongs to the opponent group and gave a stabbing blow on his left side abdomen with a knife. When the deceased cried for water, the other accused persons also assaulted him. This witness has further deposed that the Appellant and others lifted him and while the Appellant wanted to give him a knife blow, he warded off the same as a consequence sustained cut injury on his left palm. Similarly, P.W.5 has deposed that on the day of occurrence at 4 to 4.30 P.M. he came to Sahana Ghat with a boat. P.W.4 asked him to take the boat to the other side. At that time the accused persons were quarrelling with him on account of non-payment of 'Chanda'. While he was releasing the boat the accused Baban assaulted with a thenga on his head. At that time deceased-Basanta was coming to the spot. Seeing him the Appellant told that he belongs to the opposite group and asked others to assault him. Then the Appellant gave a knife blow on his abdomen. The evidence of both the witnesses not only corroborates the case of the prosecution, but also proves the same to its hilt. Both the witnesses have been examined by the Medical Officer (P.W.14), who had found several injuries on different parts of their bodies. Since P. Ws. 4 and 5 have received injuries in course of the alleged occurrence, their presence can not be doubted on any ground. Further, there is no infirmity in their evidence and the same is found to be wholly reliable on all material particulars. In such circumstances, merely because they were related to the deceased, their evidence can not be discarded on that ground. The persons who have been assaulted and have seen the murder of their relation would not in any circumstances leave the actual assailant to go scot free. 13. The next contention raised by the Appellant is that there were two F.I.R. The occurrence has taken place at 4/5 P.M. on 20.09.1991. On the next day i.e. 21.09.1991 at 7 A.M., P.W.6 lodged an oral report with the Korei Police at the spot under Ext.7. 13. The next contention raised by the Appellant is that there were two F.I.R. The occurrence has taken place at 4/5 P.M. on 20.09.1991. On the next day i.e. 21.09.1991 at 7 A.M., P.W.6 lodged an oral report with the Korei Police at the spot under Ext.7. On the same day, at about 1.30 P.M., P.W.4 lodged a report with the O.I.C. Nandipada P.S. It is the submission of the Appellant that none of the F.I.R. can be relied upon. Ext.1 has been lodged by P.W.4 which depicts details of the occurrence. It is to be kept in mind that P.W.4 is an injured and has received as many as six injuries during the alleged occurrence. He lodged the F.I.R. after receiving treatment. P.W.6, who has lodged the F.I.R. (Ext.7) has stated in his evidence that at about 4/4.30 P.M. his brothers were assaulted by the accused persons and while he was going away one of the accused gave a blow on his back. Thereafter, he jumped to the river and swam about 100 feet in the river and boarded a boat. He witnessed the occurrence regarding assault on the deceased and others remaining at a distance of about 100 feet. Therefore, he could not give the detailed description of the role played by each of the accused. However, it is important to note that this witness (P.W.6) has implicated the accused persons including the Appellant to have taken part in the assault. 14. The details of the two F.I.R. are not contradicting to each other or mutually exclusive. When information is given to the police at two different places by different persons at different time not far separated, both the reports can be construed as independent F.I.R. In the instant case, P. Ws. 4 and 6 have lodged information at two different places. The earlier one was lodged by P.W.6 who was not on the spot of assault. He saw the assault at a distance, where as P.W.4 who received the injury on his person was all through at the spot. His narration on the information given to the police would definitely be more detail than the persons who saw the occurrence from a distant place. Except the role played by different accused persons rest of the recitals in both the F.I.R. is same. In such circumstances, Ext.1 can not be discarded on that erroneous ground. His narration on the information given to the police would definitely be more detail than the persons who saw the occurrence from a distant place. Except the role played by different accused persons rest of the recitals in both the F.I.R. is same. In such circumstances, Ext.1 can not be discarded on that erroneous ground. Further the information given by the injured witnesses who were assaulted along with the deceased should not be rejected on any count. 15. There is no dispute that in criminal case F.I.R. is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. quite often results in embellishment which is an after thought. It is also well settled in law that delay itself is not fatal, if the same is explained properly. In order to appreciate as to whether there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. or not the background circumstances are to be looked into. The person who has lodged the F.I.R. himself is an injured. One of his relations has been killed at the spot and others have been indiscriminately assaulted. In such circumstances, one can not expect a person to remain in normal condition so that he can act as an ordinary man. In all possibility he must have been panic stricken. The injured was given treatment after which he could lodge the information. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire scenario such as the sequence in which the occurrence took place, the condition of the witnesses etc, it can be concluded that there was no delay which would be fatal to the prosecution or prejudicial to the accused persons. 16. It is next contended that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which do not inspire confidence. Prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P. Ws. 4,5,6,8 and 11 who have claimed to have seen the occurrence. As has been mentioned earlier the evidence of P. Ws. 6, 8 and 11 with regard to assault on the deceased by the Appellant are contradictory to their previous statement. The contradictions are on material particulars and therefore, their evidence cannot be accepted. So far as the evidence of P. Ws.4 and 5 are concerned, they have deposed about the details of the occurrence and have ascribed definite role played by the accused persons, more particularly by the Appellant. The contradictions are on material particulars and therefore, their evidence cannot be accepted. So far as the evidence of P. Ws.4 and 5 are concerned, they have deposed about the details of the occurrence and have ascribed definite role played by the accused persons, more particularly by the Appellant. Their evidence are consistent which fully corroborate the prosecution case. There is absolutely no infirmity in their evidence which diminishes their credibility. The evidence of these two eye witnesses are also corroborated by the medical evidence about the nature of injury and place of injury etc. It is the trite law that even a single witness found trustworthy can be relied upon and his evidence would be sufficient to hold a person guilty. Number of witness is not material. 17. The next contention of the accused is about the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution. The injuries on Khageswar are very simple in nature and do not need any explanation for the same. Every injury found on the person of the accused is not required to be explained and unless a person suffers from any serious injury, non-explanation thereof would not affect the prosecution case. 18. It is further contended that P.W. 4 is not a charge sheeted witness. There is no dispute that P.W.4 has lodged the information under Ext. 1. He is a witness to the occurrence. From these background circumstances there is no semblance of doubt that he was an important witness. It is strange, how his name was slipped off from the charge sheet. Merely because his name did not find place in the charge sheet the court is not handicapped to deal with the matter. If the evidence of any person appears to be relevant, the court has got ample power to examine him notwithstanding whether he has been cited as a witness or not. 19. The Appellant has tried to catch the last straw by submitting that there was previous enmity and therefore, false implication cannot be ruled out. Enmity is a double edged blade, where false implication is possible due to enmity at the same time that gives rise to strong motive to commit the crime. The occurrence took place on account of demand of 'Chanda' by the accused persons and failure to comply the same by the prosecution party, the dispute turned to violent action on the spot. The occurrence took place on account of demand of 'Chanda' by the accused persons and failure to comply the same by the prosecution party, the dispute turned to violent action on the spot. The defence raised the contention of previous enmity on the basis of the pendency of S.T. Case No. 286/92 against the prosecution party instituted by the father of the Appellant. The allegation in the said case is that there was theft of stone committed by the prosecution party. This F.I.R. was lodged at 11 A.M. on 21.09.1991 which is posterior to the F.I.R. lodged against the accused persons. This itself goes to prove that this was an attempt to create a false case. Further the recital in the F.I.R. reveals that the alleged quarrel ensued on account of theft of stone on 11.09.1991 and 15.09.1991. Curiously no information had been lodged regarding the said theft even though the same is a cognizable offence. In this background, the counter case indicated by the accused persons does not inspire confidence. 20. From the above evidence, it is proved that the Appellant is the author of the fatal injuries received by the deceased on his abdomen which caused his death. 21. The next question comes for consideration is as to for what offence the Appellant is responsible. Undisputedly, there is one injury which resulted in death of the deceased and the same is attributed to the Appellant. It is also an admitted position that the quarrel preceded the assault. The quarrel took place at the spot itself. There was no premeditation nor is there any evidence that the Appellant was expecting the deceased to come to that place. There was no direct quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased on any issue. From the above circumstances, it can reasonably be inferred that there was no intention to cause death. The incident took place at the spur of the moment in the heat of passion. Therefore, the Appellant can be held guilty u/s 304(I) instead of Section 302 I.P.C. As to sentence, we are of the opinion that ten years rigorous imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the Appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. is altered to one u/s 304, Part-I, I.P.C. and he is sentenced to under to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Final Result : Allowed