Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 23.4.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, whereby, the accused - appellants Sewa Singh and Sher Singh (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) were convicted under Sections 304 part-II and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, each, for the offence under Section 304 part-II IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 201 IPC. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. However, the trial against one more accused, namely Som Singh (non-appellant), could not proceed as he had expired during the trial. 3. Nobody knew that marry making day i.e. 26.1.1989 for the appellants and Som Singh on account of the marriage of Didar Singh, son of Som Singh would become a tragic day for Dev Singh. Dev Singh and Som Singh were friends, which led Som Singh to invite Dev Singh on the marriage celebrations of his son Didar Singh, a day earlier to the date of marriage. Amrik Singh and Dev Singh, both brothers, residents of village Silomasko went to respond the invitation at the house of Som Singh. Dev Singh also took liquor as other guests and started dancing along with others. When he was donating money by throwing it over the head of the ladies, Som Singh and his relatives took ill of it and resultantly an altercation took place. However, the same was pacified and Amrik Singh left the place leaving Dev Singh there. The marriage party (Barat) was to leave the next morning. Angrej Kaur wife of Dev Singh, remained silent on account of non-return of her husband that night, assuming that he being closely connected with Som Singh must have gone in the marriage party. However, on 26.1.1989 after the return of the marriage party, when Dev Singh did not turn back, she got recorded a DDR No.16 with ASI Pritam Singh at Police Post Bela, regarding the disappearance of Dev Singh. After conducting preliminary investigations, Sub-Inspector Parkash Singh got registered a case on 4.2.1989 under Section 364 IPC. However, on 26.1.1989 after the return of the marriage party, when Dev Singh did not turn back, she got recorded a DDR No.16 with ASI Pritam Singh at Police Post Bela, regarding the disappearance of Dev Singh. After conducting preliminary investigations, Sub-Inspector Parkash Singh got registered a case on 4.2.1989 under Section 364 IPC. On 5.2.1989, the dead body of Dev Singh was recovered in a decomposed condition from the pond of village Silomasko, whereupon, proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) were conducted. Meanwhile, the police while raising suspicion over Jaspal Singh son of Dalip Singh, a nephew of Dev Singh and his brothers Balbir Singh and Gurmit Singh, for the murder of Dev Singh, started investigation and nominated them as accused. However, on their protest being raised before the Governor of Punjab, the investigation was entrusted to Crime Wing of CID, Punjab, which found the aforesaid persons innocent and reached the conclusion that the present appellants and Som Singh (since expired) were responsible for the murder of Dev Singh, on the basis of the altercation, which took place between them during the dance performance by Dev Singh on the day of the marriage function. The accused caught hold of Dev Singh, struck him against the manger repeatedly, resulting in his death. 4. Consequently, the accused were arrested on 25.10.1989 and a charge report was submitted against them. The Trial Court framed the charge against all the three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge examined Karnail Singh (PW1), Uttam Singh (PW2), Dr.Paramvir Kaur (PW3), Daljit Singh (PW4), Gurnam Singh Patwari (PW5), Jit Singh (PW6), Devinder Singh (PW7), Amrik Singh (PW8), Jaspal Singh (PW9), Inspector Pritam Singh (PW10), Inspector Parkash Singh (PW11) and DSP Mohan Singh (PW12). 6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they were innocent and actually Jaspal Singh, Gurmit Singh and Balbir Singh committed the murder and they were falsely implicated by Harbhajan Singh and Paramjit Singh, police personnel of CID, in connivance with them. In defence, the accused examined Dalip Singh (DW1), Harbhajan Singh (DW2), Inspector Sarwan Singh (DW3), Superintendent of Police Sohan Lal (DW4) and Chander Sheikhar, DIG (DW5). 7. Arguments heard. Record perused. 8. In defence, the accused examined Dalip Singh (DW1), Harbhajan Singh (DW2), Inspector Sarwan Singh (DW3), Superintendent of Police Sohan Lal (DW4) and Chander Sheikhar, DIG (DW5). 7. Arguments heard. Record perused. 8. There is no denying a fact that the occurrence took place on the evening of 25.1.1989, when the deceased along with Amrik Singh had gone to attend the celebrations arranged on the eve of the marriage of Didar Singh son of Som Singh at their house. Dev Singh was left at the house by Amrik Singh and he himself came back. It is also fully established on record that Dev Singh and Som Singh were friends. It is also established fact that dead body of Dev Singh was recovered from a pond on 5.2.1989. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that after the FIR regarding disappearance of Dev Singh was got recorded by his wife Angrejo on 26.1.1989, the police acted on misconceptions that Dev Singh had illicit relations with the wife of his brother Dalip Singh and that he had also caught the wife of Amrik Singh. As such, Jaspal Singh son of Dalip Singh and his brothers Gurmit Singh and Balbir Singh having developed grudge against Dev Singh, must have committed his murder. The police never worked to go to the root of the real cause, which led to his murder for the reasons, best known to it. Amrik Singh (PW8) in his initial version as well as in the FIR No.4 dated 4.2.1989 had directly raised the finger against the relatives of Som Singh. He had further stated that they had beaten his brother at that time, but the police remained silent qua this aspect of the matter, but continued wasting time while raising suspicion over kiths and kins of Dev Singh (deceased). Ultimately, on the statement of Jit Singh (PW6), recorded on 20.8.1991 and Devinder Singh (PW7) by the Crime Branch, the police could reach the truth of the story. 9. An abortive bid has been made by the counsel for the appellants to prove the innocence of the appellants by urging forward that a long delay in recording the statements of the witnesses is a point in favour of them and proof showing that the prosecution story coming to the surface after a long time sans truthfulness and shadows the prosecution case with doubt. Having deliberated over the issue for a considerable time, I do not hasten to hold that the present is not the case of recording the delayed statements, but it refers to the slackness of the prosecuting agency, not to carry out the investigation in a right direction to bring on surface the true facts of the case. Amrik Singh (PW8) while raising the finger over the relatives of Som Singh cannot be doubted when he says that after the altercation, peace was restored and he had left the place by leaving his brother (Dev Singh -deceased) there. He does not mention regarding the second incident culminating in the death of Dev Singh. No doubt, the medical evidence also confirms the fact that Dev Singh had also taken liquor. Therefore, after the peace had been restored, he may have again started dancing, ,which invited annoyance of Som Singh and his relatives leading to the present occurrence. Jit Singh (PW6) while explaining the delay, has stated that after the occurrence, he went back to his house and then in the next morning at about 4.30 a.m, Som Singh (deceased accused) came to his house and told him to give a different coloured version, if an enquiry about the death of Dev Singh is conducted and he should tell that Dev Singh had been sent to his village by him through the `katcha path, leading to village Silomasko. He further disclosed that Som Singh threatened him of teaching him a lesson, if he disclosed a true version. He went on saying that Som Singh had departed with the marriage party (barat) deputing him to look after the cattle in the house. The tenor of the statement of the witness reveals that he was under the influence of Som Singh being a poor labourer and kept quiet for some time on account of threat perception to his life. Similarly, as regards the statement of Devinder Singh (PW7), he has duly explained the delay in recording the statement by testifying that he had left for Amritsar on the next day of the occurrence and returned 4/5 months thereafter and disclosed about the occurrence. Similarly, as regards the statement of Devinder Singh (PW7), he has duly explained the delay in recording the statement by testifying that he had left for Amritsar on the next day of the occurrence and returned 4/5 months thereafter and disclosed about the occurrence. In the facts and the circumstances of the instant case when the prosecution had no mood to work on finding fault with Som Singh and his relatives, the Investigating Officer must have tried to ignore the glaring evidence by paying no heed to them. That is why, the necessity to transfer the investigation to the Crime Branch arose and the relatives of the deceased became furious for condemning them as culprits on the death of their own son. Despite this delay in recording their statements, nothing substantial has been found to dub them as false witnesses. The statements coming fluently from the mouths of these two independent witnesses having no grudge or grievance against the accused and having no special affiliation with the complainant, tore out their abdomen to bring the truth to the surface. 10. The testimony of Jit Singh (PW6) has been challenged on another ground that in the affidavit Ex.DB sworn in by him in favour of the accused reveals that Dev Singh was in a drunken condition when he was dancing and Jit Singh had taken him to a distance for sending him to his village. Anyway, when the investigation was on, then the accused could not take the investigation in their own hands and get the affidavit of the witness and start parallel investigation. The affidavit Ex.DB procured by the accused smells of their malafides and proves the prosecution version and also the explanation made by Amrik Singh (PW8) in the court stating that it was the accused who had not allowed him to open the mouth and had compelled him to make a false version regarding the incident. The prosecution story does not find support only from the testimony of Jit Singh (PW6) and Devinder Singh (PW7), but also stands corroborated by Dr.Paramvir Kaur Virk (PW3), who had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Dev Singh. The prosecution story does not find support only from the testimony of Jit Singh (PW6) and Devinder Singh (PW7), but also stands corroborated by Dr.Paramvir Kaur Virk (PW3), who had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Dev Singh. No doubt, Dr.Paramvir Kaur Virk could not find any external mark of injury on his head, but the turban found on the head and face of the deceased revealed that he must be wearing turban at that time, therefore, due to the intervention of the turban, when his head was being struck against the manger, he might not have suffered external marks of injury, but she has stated in her examination as under : "... On exploration no external injury was visible on the head. On opening the scalp punctuated hemorrhages on outer surface of parietal lobes of brain along with multiple hemorrhages. Defused underlying brain tissue i.e, contusion and laceration of brain." She also stated that the death in this case was due to head injury leading to the injury to the brain tissue and shock, in ordinary course of nature. On police request Ex.PC, she further ruled out the possibility that injury may have been caused due to striking a person against some wall repeatedly. She also stated that some time external mark of injury does not occur on this part of body even on striking the hard surface. She has further opined that time lapsed between the injury and the death was about half an hour and time lapsed between death and post mortem was one to two weeks. She also opined that injury to the brain was so extensive that the person must have died within one hour on account of this injury. 11 Besides, the post mortem report Ex.PA, Chemical Examiner Report Ex.PE also lends support to the prosecution case that the alcohol was detected in the liver, spleen, kidney, small and large intestines and stomach. Thus, it verifies the fact that Dev Singh was taken away and was given injuries when he was busy in `Bhangra as part of celebrations of the marriage of Didar Singh son of Som Singh "accused (since deceased). Thus, it verifies the fact that Dev Singh was taken away and was given injuries when he was busy in `Bhangra as part of celebrations of the marriage of Didar Singh son of Som Singh "accused (since deceased). Thus, on appreciation of the entire evidence, while putting it on the parameters of reliability and credibility, no manner of doubt is left in my mind to hold that when Dev Singh had gone to attend the marriage of Didar Singh, son of his friend and while he was under the influence of liquor and was jubilantly engaged in `Bhangra dance along with others, a small incident of waiving of currency notes over the head of a woman by Dev Singh, excited the fury of the appellants and Som Singh. All of them took ill of it and in heat of moment they took Dev Singh aside and struck him against pucca manger. Thereafter, Som Singh, apprehending that injuries suffered by Dev Singh may not be a source of trouble in their marriage celebrations, took Dev Singh to pond and threw him away. The Trial Court appears to have appreciated the evidence in right perspective. No other argument has been raised, so as to doubt the participation of the appellants in the commission of the crime. As a result of above discussion, finding no merit in the appeal, the conviction of the appellants is upheld. The sentence awarded also commensurates with the crime. Hence, no interference in the quantum of sentence is also warranted.