JUDGMENT (Oral: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.) This appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.05.1999, passed bys Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 237 of 1995, whereby said court has convicted the three appellants Harbansh Singh, Harcharan Singh and Amarjeet Singh under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short I.P.C.), and each one of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. Appellants are further convicted under section 323/34 and under Section 324/34 and each one of the appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, under section 323/34 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under section 324/34 I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.03.1992 at about noon Amar Singh (deceased) was about to take his meals in his house situated in village Harayya, within the limits of Police Station Nanakmatta, when accused/appellants Harbansh Singh, Harcharan Singh @ Channi, Amarjeet Singh and one Jeet Singh armed with LATHIES and BALLAM (rod with sharp edged pointed blade at the end) came there. The accused/appellants told the deceased that since he has not allowed them to construct their house in the neighbourhood, they would finish him. Thereafter, all the three accused armed with LATHIES and BALLAM started assaulting Amar Singh. Jogendra Kaur (PW2) (wife of Amar Singh), and Munsha Singh (minor son of Amar Singh) came to save Amar Singh, along with complainant PW1 Sukhdev Singh (another minor son of Amar Singh). On which the accused assaulted them, and Jogendra Kaur (PW2) and Munsha Singh (PW5) also suffered injuries. Meanwhile, due to the alarm being raised, other persons from the neighbourhood rushed to the spot, and on seeing them accused ran away. Injured PW2 Jogendra Kaur and injured PW5 Munsha Singh went to Primary Health Centre, Sitarganj for medical treatment, and complainant PW1 Sukhdev Singh went to Police Station Nanakmatta to get lodged the First Information Report. He gave First Information Report (Ex. A1) at the Police Station at 15.10 hours, on the basis of which crime no. Injured PW2 Jogendra Kaur and injured PW5 Munsha Singh went to Primary Health Centre, Sitarganj for medical treatment, and complainant PW1 Sukhdev Singh went to Police Station Nanakmatta to get lodged the First Information Report. He gave First Information Report (Ex. A1) at the Police Station at 15.10 hours, on the basis of which crime no. 42 of 1992, was registered relating to offences punishable under section 302 and 324 I.P.C. against the accused/appellants Harbansh Singh, Harcharan Singh, Amarjeet and one Jeet Singh . The investigation was taken up by PW7 Sub Inspector Ummed Ali. After the First Information Report was lodged, Police came to the spot and took dead body of Amar Singh in their possession, and prepared inquest report (Ex. A7), on the very day (19.03.1992). The Police further prepared sample seal (Ex. A-10), Police Form No. 13 (Ex. A-11), sketch of the dead body (Ex. A-12), and letter to Chief Medical Officer (Ex. A-8) for post mortem examination. The dead body was sent in a sealed condition for post mortem examination through PW6 Constable Surendra Sing. The post mortem examination was conducted on 20.03.1992, at 2.00 pm by PW4 Dr. N.S. Kanyal, who prepared autopsy report (Ex. A-4), and recorded as many as five ante mortem injuries. He opined that Amar Singh (deceased) had died due to shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer interrogated the witnesses and prepared Site Plan (Ex. A-13), after inspection of the spot. The injuries on the persons of the other two injured person namely (Jogendra Kaur and Munsha Singh were recorded by PW3 Dr. Mahendra Singh of Primary Health Centre, Sitarganj, who prepared injuries reports (Ex. A-2) and (Ex. A-3) on 19.03.1992. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused, and recovered one BALLAM from accused Harbansh Singh and prepared memorandum of recovery (Ex. A-5). On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ex. A-18) against accused/appellants namely Harbansh Singh, Harcharan Singh, Amarjeet Singh and One Jeet Singh for their trial in respect of offences punishable under sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. 4. The Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions at Nainital. (Earlier Nanakmatta, and Sitarganj were part of the District Nainital). The Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions at Nainital. (Earlier Nanakmatta, and Sitarganj were part of the District Nainital). Learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, after hearing the parties, on 21.07.1995, framed charge of offence punishable under section 324 read with section 34 I.P.C., and relating to offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C., against all the four accused including the appellants, who pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW1 Sukhdev Singh (complainant and minor eye witness), PW2 Jogendra Kaur (widow of the deceased and injured eye witness), PW3 Dr. Mahendra Singh (who recorded the injuries found on the person of Jogendra Kaur and Munsha Singh), PW4 Dr. N.S. Kanyal (who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Amar Singh), PW5 Munsha Singh (injured eye witness and another minor son of the deceased), PW6 Constable Surendra Singh (who took the dead body for post mortem examination), and PW7 Sub Inspector Ummed Ali (who investigated the crime). The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which, they alleged that the prosecution evidence was false, and they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that the charge of offences punishable under section 302/34, 324/34 and 323/34 I.P.C., proved against accused/appellants Harbansh Singh, “Harcharan Singh and Amarjeet Singh. The trial court further found that the prosecution has failed to prove charge as against accused Jeet Singh beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him. After hearing on sentence, each one of the convicts was sentenced to imprisonment for life, and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- under section 302/341 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, under section 323/34 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under section 324/34 I.P.C. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 19.05.1999, passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 237 of 1995, this appeal was filed by the convicts before Allahabad High Court on 14.06.1999, where it was admitted on 17.06.1999. The appeal is received by this court under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (central Act No. 29 of 2000), for its disposal. 5. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention here the ante mortem injuries found by PW4 Dr. N.S. Kanyal on the body of the Amar Singh (deceased). The five ante mortem injuries mentioned in the autopsy report (Ex. A-4) are being reproduced below :- 1. Punctured wound 1.5 cm x 0.1 cm x peritoneum deep on left lower side of chest 4 cm away from mid line 2 cm above costal margin, quadrangle in shape, margins are irregular, blood clots were present. 2. Stab wound 2 cm x .5 cm x peritoneum deep on left side inferior inguinal region 6 cm from anterior iliac spine, elephantine shape, margins are irregular, blood clots present. 3. Stab wound 1 cm x .5 cm x muscle deep on posterior lateral part of back of chest right side margins are irregular, one cm below the costal margins, blood clots present. 4. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on bridge of nose, red in colour. 5. Traumatic swelling 10 cm x 10 cm of front of lower thread of left thigh, on opening fracture found of femer bone. PW4 Dr. N.S. Kanyal, after post mortem examination opined that the body was one day old, and deceased (Amar Singh) had died of shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. From the evidence adduced by Medical Officer read with the post mortem examination report, it is established on the record that deceased (Amar Singh) had died homicidal death on 19.03.1992. Now, we have to examine whether accused/appellants Harbansh Singh, Harcharan Singh and Amarjeet Singh, with common intention, committed murder of Amar Singh, and whether they have voluntarily caused injuries on the person of PW2 Jogendra Kaur and PW5 Munsha Singh. 6. PW1 Sukhdev Singh is complainant and eye witness of the incident. He is son of the deceased (Amar Singh). He was aged 12 years at the time of incident. PW1 Sukhdev Singh has narrated the prosecution story and stated that on the day of incident it was around noon when accused/appellants Harbansh Singh, Harcharan Singh and one Jeet Singh armed with BHALA {(BALLAM) rod having pointed blades at one end} and accused/appellant Amarjeet Singh armed with LATHIE came to his house and assaulted his father. PW1 Sukhdev Singh has narrated the prosecution story and stated that on the day of incident it was around noon when accused/appellants Harbansh Singh, Harcharan Singh and one Jeet Singh armed with BHALA {(BALLAM) rod having pointed blades at one end} and accused/appellant Amarjeet Singh armed with LATHIE came to his house and assaulted his father. The witness further stated that when his mother Jogendra Kaur (PW2) and his brother Munsha Singh (PW5) came to the rescue of his father, they too were assaulted by the accused. He has further stated that his father Amar Singh died on the spot. PW1 Sukhdev Singh has stated that after the incident, his injured mother and injured brother were taken by his uncle to Sitarganj Hospital, and he (PW1) went to the police station to lodge the First Information Report. He proved First Information Report (Ex. A-1), which was got lodged by him. Nothing has come out in his cross examination which creates doubt in his testimony. On the day of recording of his statement in the year 1997, before the trial court, he was aged 19 years. The presence of the minor son of the deceased in his house at time of the incident is natural. 7. PW2 Jogendra Kaur (widow of the deceased) is the injured eye witness who has also narrated the same story as narrated by her son PW1 Sukhdev Singh. In her cross examination also nothing has come out which shakes her testimony or makes it doubtful. Her presence in her house at the time of incident is also natural. 8. PW5 Munsha Singh (another minor son of the deceased) is also an injured eye witness, who has corroborated the testimony given by his brother Sukhdev Singh and mother Jogendra Kaur. He has aged 13 years, on the day of incident, and 20 years when his statement was recorded by the trial court. He was also subjected to lengthy cross examination but nothing creating doubt in his ocular testimony could be elicited. 9. The statement of the three eye witnesses further gets corroborated by the statement of PW3 Dr. Mahendra Singh {who examined the injuries on the person of Jogendra Kaur (PW2) and Munsha Singh (PW5)} on 19.03.1992, and prepared injury report (Ex. A-2) and injury report (Ex. A-3), respectively. Injury report (Ex. 9. The statement of the three eye witnesses further gets corroborated by the statement of PW3 Dr. Mahendra Singh {who examined the injuries on the person of Jogendra Kaur (PW2) and Munsha Singh (PW5)} on 19.03.1992, and prepared injury report (Ex. A-2) and injury report (Ex. A-3), respectively. Injury report (Ex. A-2), which relates to the injury on the person of Jogendra Kaur shows following injury suffered by her :- Incised wound 5 x ½ x ½ cm in oblique direction antero lateral direction, blood is oozing out, margins are clear, kept under observation, advised for x ray of skull. Injury report (Ex. A-3) which relates to the injuries found on person of Munsha Singh (PW5) by PW3 Dr. Mahendra Singh on 19.03.1992, shows following injuries :- (i) Lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm over the anterior aspect of the upper part of left thigh. Advised for x ray of left thigh. (ii) Lacerated wound 1 x ½ cm over the posterior aspect of the left thigh, 20 cm away from the left iliac spine. The injuries mentioned above can not be said to be self inflicted, and corroborate what the eye witnesses have deposed. 10. On behalf of the appellants it is argued that on the same set of evidence, the trial court has acquitted Jeet Singh, as such the appellants are also entitled to acquittal. We have gone through impugned judgment passed by the trial court and found that since it has come on the record, in the statement of the witnesses that Jeet Singh was lame and handicapped, as such, it was doubtful if he participated in the commission of crime, giving him benefit of reasonable doubt, he was acquitted. The present appellants are not handicapped and lame like Jeet Singh, and their case can not be equated with him. We think it just and proper to mention here the principle of falses in uno, falses in omnibus, is not applicable in India. The oral testimony of the eye witnesses read with the medical evidence on record, proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/appellants for which they are convicted. 11. Shri S.K. Mandal learned counsel for the appellants no. 1 and 3 and Ms. Vijay Laxmi Phartiyal Amicus Curiae for the appellant no. The oral testimony of the eye witnesses read with the medical evidence on record, proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/appellants for which they are convicted. 11. Shri S.K. Mandal learned counsel for the appellants no. 1 and 3 and Ms. Vijay Laxmi Phartiyal Amicus Curiae for the appellant no. 2 pointed out that PW1 Sukhdev Singh has admitted in his cross examination that he lodged First Information Report on dictation of Investigating Officer. In this connection, it is further argued that the prosecution version mentioned in the F.I.R. can not be taken to be true, as the same was dictated by the Investigating Officer. However, having gone through the evidence on record, we find that the above fact, does not create any doubt in the prosecution story narrated by the eye witnesses, and we are of the view that since the complainant Sukhdev Singh was aged 12 years at the time of incident, and lodged the First Information Report (Ex. A-1), there is nothing unnatural on the part of the Police Officer to help him in giving the written version of the prosecution story. A 12 years old child cannot be expected to know how to write or dictate the First Information Report. 12. It is contended that on behalf of the appellants that injury on person of Amarjeet Singh is not explained by the prosecution, and for that reason it can be said that prosecution has not come with the true story of the version. No doubt, PW3 Dr. Mahendra Singh in his cross examination has admitted that on the very day i.e. 19.03.1992, he recorded injuries on the person of Amarjeet Singh, but it is not clear as to what was the nature of injuries found on person of Amarjeet Singh. It is not all kinds of injuries which are required to be explained. It is settled principle of law that superficial injury or the injuries which could have been caused at any time other than incident are not required to be explained by the prosecution. No injury report has been brought on record from the side of the defence. Apart from this unless it is shown that the nature of injury was serious and caused the time when the incident is said to have been taken place, the prosecution story can not be doubted on that ground. 13. No injury report has been brought on record from the side of the defence. Apart from this unless it is shown that the nature of injury was serious and caused the time when the incident is said to have been taken place, the prosecution story can not be doubted on that ground. 13. Shri S.K. Mandal on behalf of the appellants further submitted that the motive of commission of crime is not clear, and place of occurrence is also not the same as narrated by the eyewitnesses. However, we do not find much force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants for the reason that where there is ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses relating to commission of murder by the accused, it is not required by the prosecution to prove the motive. Apart from this it has clearly come in the statements of PW1 Sukhdev Singh and PW5 Munsha Singh that the accused before assaulting the deceased (Amar Singh) told him that he did not let them construct the house in the neighbour hood and as such they would settle the score. As to the place of incident we do not find that the same stands changed. All the three eyewitness have stated that incident has taken place in the house of the deceased (Amar Singh). The Site Plan (Ex. A-13) also shows place that incident at “A” in the house of the deceased (Amar Singh). 14. It is also argued that on behalf of the appellant that the non production of blood stained soil by the prosecution and not sending the same for chemical examination, create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. Had it been a case of circumstantial evidence this lapse on the part of investigation could have been said to be relevant but in the present case, merely not sending blood stained soil for chemical analysis or not producing it in the court is not sufficient to disbelieve the ocular testimony adduced by the eyewitnesses, particularly the injured eyewitnesses. 15. Relying on the case of Badam Singh vs. State of M.P. 2005 SCC (criminal) 86, it is argued that in the present case First Information Report was not sent immediately to the Magistrate as required under section 157(1) of Cr.P.C. and as such it should be treated to be fatal to the prosecution. 15. Relying on the case of Badam Singh vs. State of M.P. 2005 SCC (criminal) 86, it is argued that in the present case First Information Report was not sent immediately to the Magistrate as required under section 157(1) of Cr.P.C. and as such it should be treated to be fatal to the prosecution. However, in view of the latest principle of law laid down by the Apex court in Mehmood vs. State of U.P. Judgment today 2007 (13) SC 68 and Narendra Kumar vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2010) 9 SCC 259, we are of the view that some delay in dispatch of F.I.R. to the Magistrate is not sufficient to throw out the prosecution case. 16. For the reasons as discussed above, we do not find any force in this appeal, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by said court against accused/appellants by the trial court is affirmed. The two accused/appellants namely Harbansh Singh and Amarjeet Singh are said to be in jail. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of jail concerned. Lower court record be sent back to make the accused/appellant Harcharan Singh to serve out the sentence awarded against him by the trial court.