Judgment Arun Mishra, J. ( 1. ) The appeal has been preferred by the State of M.P. aggrieved by judgment dt. 20.2.1992 passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal, passed in S.T. No. 292/90, u/s 302 of the I.P.C. acquitting the respondents for commission of offence u/s 302 r/w 147, 148, 149 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. ( 2. ) As per prosecution case, on 19.6.1990 Rajmohan and Niranjan Singh had gone to Jammusarkala to purchase sugar, when they were coming back in the forest near village they were beaten upon by six accused persons with the halp of lathi, Lohangi and Farsa. Intimation of accident was given by Mania Banjara (PW-3) to Daulat Singh (PW-4) and to Sumer Singh (PW-10). Sumer Singh and Mania Banjara came to the spot where deceased Niranjan Singh as well as Rajmohan made oral dying declaration that they were beaten upon by Maharaj Singh, Gopal Singh, Kishan Singh, Kamal Singh, Raghunath Singh and Prahlad Singh with the help of aforesaid weapons. Telephonic intimation was received at Police Station Berasia at 3:40 p.m., on the basis of which Sub-Inspector O.P. Katiyar (PW-13) reached to the spot along with police force. On the spot Dehati Nalish was recorded at 16:40 hours, on the basis of which marg and later on crime was registered. Inquest of dead body of Rajmohan and Niranjan Singh was prepared and post-mortem was performed by Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW-1). On the person of deceased Niranjan Singh in all 28 injuries were found two of them were found on the head and 26 injuries were found on other parts of the body whereas on the person of the deceased Rajmohan 28 injuries were found, 3 of them were on the head. All the injuries were ante-mortem. Death was homicidal. Accused persons were arrested. Weapons of offence were seized from them. Spot map was prepared. There was enmity between the parties with respect to agriculture land. On the cloths, lathi and Lohangi human blood was found. ( 3. ) Accused abjured the guilt and contended that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Accused persons have been acquitted. Prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses. None of the witness was examined in the defence. Accused persons have been acquitted. During the pendency of the appeal Maharaj Singh died, his name has been deleted. The appeal remains with respect to five accused persons. ( 4. Accused persons have been acquitted. Prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses. None of the witness was examined in the defence. Accused persons have been acquitted. During the pendency of the appeal Maharaj Singh died, his name has been deleted. The appeal remains with respect to five accused persons. ( 4. ) Shri T.K. Modh, learned Dy.A.G. appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that in the instant case there was nothing to disbelieve the ocular evidence of Feran Singh (PW-5) and oral dying declaration made by deceased Niranjan Singh as well as Rajmohan to Daulat Singh (PW-4), Harnath Singh ((PW-9), Sumer Singh (PW-10) and Shivraj Singh (PW-11). The police had received telephonic intimation, on that investigating officer proceeded towards towards spot, entry (P/3) in general diary was recorded at 3 40 p.m. and thereafter Investigating Officer has proceeded towards the spot. Dehati Nalish was recorded on the spot at 16:40 hours. Merely on the basis cf statement of Daulat Singh that he had lodged the report at the police station or it was recorded on the spot, entire prosecution case could not have been disbelieved. Distance of police station from the spot was 18 k.m. and from narrow pathway it was 8 k.m. Name of Feran Singh (PW-5) was mentioned in the first information report as well as factum of dying declaration made by the deceased. He has also submitted that it was not necessary to mention the details in the inquest report. Acquittal of the accused persons in the instant case was uncalled for. It is a case where two persons have been murdered in the broad day light at the distance of 1.5 k.m. from the village. There is overwhelming evidence against the accused persons. They are liable to be convicted f- r commission of offence of murder of Niranjan Singh and Rajmohan. ( 5. ) Shri Aditya Adhikari appearing with Shri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused respondents had taken this Court through evidence on record. He has submitted that the statement of Feran Singh (PW-5) so called eye witness does not inspire confidence, he did not disclose the fact that he had witnesses the incident till the police reached the spot. He has submitted that the statement of Feran Singh (PW-5) so called eye witness does not inspire confidence, he did not disclose the fact that he had witnesses the incident till the police reached the spot. He had not disclosed the fact to his father Daulat Singh (PW-4) also when he met him at Berasia, thus, he has been planted as an eye-witness after deliberation and consultation. Daulat Singh (PW-4) says that he had reached at the concerned police station at 1 p.m. and lodged the report that report has been suppressed. Daulat Singh (PW-4) has clearly deposed that he did not lodge Dehati Nalish (P/5) on the spot. Thus, the Investigating Officer was gaining time in order to give shape to the prosecution case. Doctor has opined that both the injured persons would have become unconscious within the time of 10-15 minutes. Thus, the dying declarations made after about 30 minutes of the incident to Dault Singh(PW-4), Harnath Singh (PW9), Sumer Singh(PW-lO) and Shivraj Singh (PW- 11) have been rightly discarded by the Trial Court. No independent witness has been examined in the instant case. Thus, the acquittal of the accused respondents by the trial court is proper. No case for interference in the appeal is made out. ( 6. ) In the instant case Ex.P/3 the entry was made in the General Diary on 19.6.1990 at 15:40 hours, on the basis of the telephonic information which was received to the effect that there was quarrel between accused Maharaj Singh and his brother and two persons were lying in unconscious condition in the forest of Hinoti Ghat. On the basis of this information O.P. Katiyar (PW-13) ASI and S.K. Sharma proceeded towards the spot. Entry (P/3) made in General Diary has been proved by Dwarka Singh (PW-2), which was recorded by him. Daulat Singh (PW-4) is the uncle of the deceased, he has stated that he went to police station and lodged the report (P/5) and thereafter police came to the spot. The fact remains that Dehati Nalish (P/5) was recorded on the spot by O.P. Katiyar (PW-13), Sub-Inspector, Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated that Dehati Nalish was reduced in writing by him on the spot it was not recorded by him at the police station, though there is some discrepancy whether Dehati Nalish was recorded on the spot or at the police station. He has stated that Dehati Nalish was reduced in writing by him on the spot it was not recorded by him at the police station, though there is some discrepancy whether Dehati Nalish was recorded on the spot or at the police station. The fact remains that considering the distance from the police station and the entry made in the General Diary (P/3) it is apparent that investigation was done promptly in the instant case and discrepancy cannot be said to be material in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reasons to be mentioned hereinafter as the ocular evidence as well as making of the dying declaration by the deceased persons is found to be reliable. The Apex Court in Dharmendrasinh alias Mansing Ratansingh v. State of Gujarat, AIR2002 SC 1937 considered the contradiction relating to lodging of first information report, according to the witness she had gone to police station where inquiries were made from her by the police personnel and thereafter report was lodged on 24.8.1998 itself at 5.00 p.m. PW-9 states the complaint was given by Ashaben on the basis of which a case was registered at the police station. The Apex Court observed that there was definitely contradiction about the lodging of the first information report, but, the effect of such contraction or discrepancy may have to be viewed in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. There may be cases where such a discrepancy may prove fatal to the prosecution case whereas in other cases it may not have the same effect. In the instant case, it appears that as police received telephonic information (P/3) it was not thought proper by the 10 to record Dehati Nalish at the police station, he recorded it on the spot as police force proceeded to the spot was mentioned in General Diary (P/3) at 3:40 p.m., thus, nothing can be made out in favour of the accused persons on the basis of aforesaid discrepancy in the instant case. Telephonic information cannot be treated as first information report in view of decision in Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab and anr, AIR 1970 SC 1566 it has been laid down that cryptic and anonymous oral message which did not in terms clearly specify a cognizable offence cannot be treated as first information report. Telephonic information cannot be treated as first information report in view of decision in Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab and anr, AIR 1970 SC 1566 it has been laid down that cryptic and anonymous oral message which did not in terms clearly specify a cognizable offence cannot be treated as first information report. The mere fact that this information was the first in point of time does not by itself clothe it with the character of first information report. The question whether or not a particular document constitutes a first information report has, broadly speaking, to be determined on the relevant facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the facts and circumstances of this case it is apparent that Dehati Nalish (P/5) has to be treated as first information report in which name of Feran Singh (PW-5) was mentioned as an eye-witness of incident. Statement of Feran Singh u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on the same day. Police reached the spot thereafter recorded Dehati Nalish (P/5) and also recorded statement u/s 161 Cr.P.G. and thereafter prepared inquest of the body. It was not necessary to mention names of the accused persons in the inquest. Inquests (P/8 and P/9) were prepared on 19.6.1990. Case was also registered on the same day, on the basis of Dehati Nalsih (P/5), first information report (P/22) was reduced in writing. Initially the marg (P/24) was registered on the basis of telephonic information. Purpose of inquest report has been considered in Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and ors. v. State of U.R, AIR 2006 SC 951 , the Apex Court has laid down that section 174 is limited in scope and is confined to the ascertainment of the apparent cause of death. It is concerned with discovering whether in a given case the death was accidental, suicidal or homicidal or caused by animal and in what manner or by what weapon or instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. It is for this limited purpose that persons acquainted with the facts of the case are summoned and examined under S. 175. The details of the overt acts are not necessary to be recorded in the inquest report. It is for this limited purpose that persons acquainted with the facts of the case are summoned and examined under S. 175. The details of the overt acts are not necessary to be recorded in the inquest report. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted or who are the witnesses of the assault is foreign to the ambit and scope of proceedings under S. 174. Neither in practice nor in law it is necessary for the person holding the inquest to mention all these details: In view of aforesaid mention of the details, names of the accused in the inquest was not at all necessary. We find no force in submission of the counsel that case becomes doubtful due to aforesaid non mention of names of accused in the inquest. ( 7. ) Coming to reliability of ocular evidence furnished by Feran Singh (PW-5): he is solitary eye-witness examined in the instant case, he is the son of Daulat Singh (PW-4) and cousin of the deceased; Niranjan Singh and Rajmohan. He has stated that he saw the incident. He had taken the cattle for the purpose of grazing in the forest, when he heard hue and cry he reached to the spot, when he reached at the distance of five steps he saw that the accused persons were inflicting injuries on the deceased, Gopal Singh was armed with Lohangi and Kamal singh was carrying Farsa, remaining accused persons with lathi. On seeing him accused Kishan Singh, Kamal Singh and Raghunath Singh ran towards him, on that he ran away from the spot due to fear of the accused he did not proceed towards the house and went towards Berasia where he met with father, who asked him to go back to the spot as his father Daulat Singh was going to police station, he took his brother on bicycle from the school and went back to the spot and on the spot within five minutes he disclosed the fact that he had seen the incident. Merely by the fact that detailed deliberation did not take place between Feran Singh and his father at Berasia, it appears that both were aware of the names of the assailants as oral dying declaration was made by both deceased persons to Daufat singh also as such detail discussion did not take place between Feran and Daulat at Berasia, it cannot be said that Feran singh has been introduced as eye-witness subsequently by the prosecution. In the Dehati Nalish (P/5) on the basis of which first information report was recorded name of Feran Singh (PW-5) was mentioned as eye-witness. Witness is reliable, it appears when police reached he had disclosed immediately the fact that he had witnessed the incident, Dehati Nalish also indicates that he has not been made a witness as an after thought. He has given detailed description of the incident. Merely by the fact that he met certain persons on the way when he proceeded towards Berasia he did not disclose the incident to them, his deposition is not rendered unworthy of credence. Firstly; it is not shown that they were acquainted with the witness and secondly when witness was running from the spot in order to save himself and he had the fear of the accused persons he may not have disclosed the incident on the way to the persons whom he met. It is not uncommon to take cattle for the purpose of grazing and the witness was present in the close vicinity from the place of the incident and he has also given details of the clothes put on by the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he was not taking cattle for the purpose of grazing. We find statement of Feran Singh (PW-5) to be truthful. ( 8. ) Coming to reliability of oral dying declaration, we find on record evidence of Daulat Singh (PW-4) uncle of the deceased to the effect that they were informed by Mania Banjara (PW-3) that both Niranjan Singh and Rajmohan were lying injured in the forest when they reached the spot they found that they were hying in injured condition, they were having injuries on various parts of the body, legs etc. He asked Rajmohan and Niranjan Singh who had inflicted injuries to them, Niranjan Singh and Rajmohan made oral dying declaration that Maharaj Singh, Gopal Singh, Kishan Singh, Kamal Singh, Raghunath Singh and Prahlad Singh assaulted them, Gopal Singh was armed with Lohangi, Kamal Singh with Farsi and other with lathi, Sumer Singh and Nepal Singh were also present when oral dying declaration was made. Thereafter Daulat Singh (PW-4) left Sumer Singh (PW-10) and Nepal Singh on the spot and went towards police station. He has withstood cross-examination made with respect to oral dying declaration. He has stated that he reached within half hour to the place of incident, at that time Niranjan Singh and Rajmohan were alive. He has stated in paragraph No.3 that first to die was Rajmohan and thereafter Niranjan Singh died. We find on record yet another statement with respect to dying declaration made by Harnath Singh (PW-9), he has stated that he was informed by his wife that Rajmohan and Niranjan Singh were beaten by Maharaj Singh and his sons, on that he proceeded towards spot and found Rajmohan and Niranjan Singh in injured condition. He asked Rajmohan who inflicted the injuries upon him, Rajmohan informed that Prahlad Singh caught hold of him and Kamal Singh caught hold of Niranjan Singh. Maharaj Singh, Gopal singh, Kishan Singh and Raghunath Singh inflicted injuries with Farsa, Ballam and lathi etc. Prahlad Singh and Kamal Singh also inflicted injuries with lathi and Lohangi etc. First to die was Rajmohan and thereafter Niranjan Singh died within 5 minutes. He met Daulat Singh (PW-4) and Sumer Singh (PW-10) near injured person. He went to the spot from different way as such he did not meet them on the way to the spot. After making dying declaration Rajmohan succumbed to the injuries. Sumersingh (PW-10) father of Niranjan Singh has stated that on receiving the intimation about assault on Niranjan Singh and Rajmohan he went to the spot and asked Niranjan Singh who had inflicted injuries on them. Niranjan Singh informed the names of accused persons. Thereafter Rajmohan also made oral dying declaration naming specifically the accused persons as assailant, after sometime Rajmohan died, later on Niranjan Singh also died. Harnath also reached to the spot before the death of Niranjan Singh and Rajmohan. Shivraj Singh and Nepal Singh had also reached to the spot. Niranjan Singh informed the names of accused persons. Thereafter Rajmohan also made oral dying declaration naming specifically the accused persons as assailant, after sometime Rajmohan died, later on Niranjan Singh also died. Harnath also reached to the spot before the death of Niranjan Singh and Rajmohan. Shivraj Singh and Nepal Singh had also reached to the spot. Shivraj Singh (PW-11) has also stated that in oral dying declarations names of the accused persons were specifically mentioned and also weapons with which injuries were inflicted. We find from the aforesaid evidence that the accused were named in the oral dying declaration made by Rajmohan and Niranjan Singh. Discrepancy as to weapon cannot be said to be material in the circumstances of the instant case, or that who inflicted how many injuries etc. The Trial Court has disbelieved the factum of making oral dying declaration on the ground that Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW-1) has stated that Niranjan Singh and Rajmohan mist have died before the aforesaid witnesses reached to the spot. When we consider injuries on the person of Niranjan Singh, he was having contusion over vault 3" x 1" and was having lacerated wound over left parietal region Size 2" x 1/2" scalp deep. Remaining injuries No.3 to 16 were on the hands in the shape of contusion, abrasion, injury No. 12 was penetrating wound of 1cm x 1/2cm, injuries No. 18 to 28 were on the legs in the shape of contusion, some of them were incised wound, there were few contusions and some injuries were lacerated wound. Post-mortem examination report of Niranjan Singh indicates that there was rupture of blood capillaries resulting into extra vessation of blood in cerebral hemisphere. It is not the statement of Dr. R.K. Sharma that death took place instantaneously due to injuries. On being questioned generally he has opined that due to such injuries person may become unconscious within 10-15 minutes. It would depend upon the strength of resistance of individual, it cannot be assumed that both injured became unconscious within 10 to 15 minutes. It cannot be said that unconsciousness must have been reached by Niranjan Singh and Rajmohan within the time stated by the Doctor. Doctor has not stated that due to the particular injury person would become unconscious within particular duration. Rajmohan was having more number of injuries on the head as compared to Niranjan Singh. It cannot be said that unconsciousness must have been reached by Niranjan Singh and Rajmohan within the time stated by the Doctor. Doctor has not stated that due to the particular injury person would become unconscious within particular duration. Rajmohan was having more number of injuries on the head as compared to Niranjan Singh. The aforesaid witnesses have consistently stated that Rajmohan was first to die and thereafter Niranjan Singh died. Considering the injury on the head of Rajmohan their version appears to be truthful, in our opinion the deceased Rajmohan and Niranjan Singh were conscious when they made oral dying declaration to aforesaid witnesses. Thus, merely on the basis of general opinion of the Doctor unconsciousness must have been caused to Niranjan Singh and Rajmohan within 10-15 minutes, the version of the aforesaid witnesses with respect to making of dying declaration by the deceased persons particularly when they had reached the spot immediately after the incident. Their deposition could not have been disbelieved. Even if for the sake of argument if making of oral dying declaration is disbelieved ocular version of Feran Singh (PW-5) is found to be reliable on which conviction can be based besides we found the oral dying declaration to be truthful. ( 9. ) On 19.6.1990 offence was registered in the night, first information report was reduced in the night, that is why in general diary of that day it was not mentioned that intimation was sent on that day to the concerned Magistrate. I.O. O.P. Katiyar was not cross-examined to the effect that no intimation ever was sent to the concerned Magistrate. Even other wise in view of ocular evidence which is found to be reliable as well as oral dying declaration have been found to be reliable, case has not been concocted subsequently. In Bijoy Singh and anr. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 1949 the Apex Court has observed that delay in sending copy of report to Magistrate, by itself does not render whole of prosecution case doubtful. ( 10. ) The Trial Court has wrongly observed that in the Dehati Nalish (P/5) it was not mentioned that Feran Singh (PW-5) was eye-witness of the incident. The Trial Court has not read the Dehati Nalish (P/5) carefully in which it was clearly mentioned that Feran Singh was an eye-witness of the incident. ( 10. ) The Trial Court has wrongly observed that in the Dehati Nalish (P/5) it was not mentioned that Feran Singh (PW-5) was eye-witness of the incident. The Trial Court has not read the Dehati Nalish (P/5) carefully in which it was clearly mentioned that Feran Singh was an eye-witness of the incident. Thus, for discarding the deposition of Feran Singh (PW-5) in paragraph No.33 of the judgment passed by the trial Court misreading was made as to contents of Dehati Nalish. Merely by non-examination of the other witness who was grazing the cattle, no dent is caused to the prosecution case in the instant case as evidence adduced is found to be reliable. ( 11. ) Resultantly, the appeal deserves to be allowed, commission of offence of the accused persons stands established. The accused respondents are convicted for offence u/s 302 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. ( 12. ) We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of sentence. We deem it appropriate to sentence the accused respondents to rigorous life imprisonment for commission of murder of Niranjan Singh as well as Rajmohan, their bail-bonds are cancelled, they are directed to surrender, failing which the police shall nab them forthwith. Revision also stands disposed of. Appeal allowed.