JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.:- Rattan Singh son of Narinjan Singh is aggrieved against the judgment of sentence and order of conviction dated 1.3.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby, it convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘Code’) and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Gajjan Singh-deceased is the real brother of Rattan Singh, the present appellant. The prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of statement (Ex. PF) of Harjinder Kaur wife of Gajjan Singh made to SHO, Didar Singh at about 1.10.P.M. on 22.6.2002. She stated that she has a daughter namely Manpreet, aged about 1½ years, out of her marriage Crl. Appeal No 319-DB of 2005 with Gajjan Singh. Gajjan Singh has three other brothers. Her husband Gajjan Singh and Sajjan Singh are jointly cultivating the land whereas his two other brothers Rattan Singh and Satnam Singh are cultivating the land separately. On 21.6.2002, at about 9.10 A.M., a minor dispute arose on the issue of tube well water. The respectable persons of the village settled the dispute and suggested the use of tube well turn by turn. On 22.6.2002 at about 10.00 A.M., her husband-Gajjan Singh and Sajjan Singh were present in the fields and were preparing the land for plantation of paddy. She and her brother Satnam Singh (PW-4) son of Murta Singh resident of village Kaimo Nangal, who had come to meet her, went to the field to serve tea and meals. Her husband’s elder brother- Rattan Singh, the present appellant, having kahi in his hand came at the tube well and told Gajjan Singh that he is going to irrigate the field with tube well water and dared Gajjan Singh to stop him. Gajjan Singh resisted and said that he will not be allowed to irrigate and he can irrigate only as per his turn. Rattan Singh became furious and gave a kahi blows continuously to her husband-Gajjan Singh, which hit on the left side of his face on the jaw, below the chin, left eye and head any her husband. Gajjan Singh fell down on the land. On raising alarm, Rattan Singh ran away from the spot with kahi. Rattan Singh became furious and gave a kahi blows continuously to her husband-Gajjan Singh, which hit on the left side of his face on the jaw, below the chin, left eye and head any her husband. Gajjan Singh fell down on the land. On raising alarm, Rattan Singh ran away from the spot with kahi. She along with her brother-in-law Sajjan Singh, nephew Sukhwinder Singh and her brother Satnam Singh removed him to civil hospital, Batala and when they reached near Amritsar bye pass, Batala, Gajjan Singh died. The doctor at civil hospital, Batala checked him and declared him dead. On the basis of such statement (Ex. PF), ruqa was sent by SHO Didar Singh and on such ruqa, SI Kans Raj recorded the First Information Report (FIR) (Ex. PF/2) at 1.30. P.M. The dead body of Gajjan Singh was sent for post mortem examination. Dr. Amandeep Singh (PW-1), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Batala conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: - 1. Fracture of the ramus of the mandible on the left as well as right side. 2. Reddish abrasion of the right shoulder, and clavicolar region 4 x 0.25 c.m. (3 in number). 3. Reddish abrasion of the left hand on the dorsam. 4. Reddish abrasion of the fore head 6 x 0.25 c.m. 5. Bleeding present from the nose and both ears. 6. Fracture of the ribs on the left side No. 4,5 and 6. 3. The Investigating Officer was handed over the clothes of the deceased by the doctor. Such clothes (Ex. PO) and the blood stained earth (Ex. PN) lifted from the place of occurrence was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. Vide the memo Ex. PO, it was found that earth lifted from the place of occurrence, underwear and parna of the deceased are stained with the human blood. The accused was arrested on 22.6.2002. On the disclosure statement made by Rattan Singh-appellant, (Ex. PQ) Kahi was recovered and memo (Ex. PS) was recorded. On completion of the investigations, the appellant, herein, was made to stand trial for an offence under Section 302 of the code. After the prosecution led its evidence the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 4. On the disclosure statement made by Rattan Singh-appellant, (Ex. PQ) Kahi was recovered and memo (Ex. PS) was recorded. On completion of the investigations, the appellant, herein, was made to stand trial for an offence under Section 302 of the code. After the prosecution led its evidence the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 4. The prosecution case is primarily based upon the statement of Harjinder Kaur (PW-3), her brother Satnam Singh (PW-4) and also Didar Singh (PW-8) the Investigating officer. PW-3 Harjinder Kaur has, inter alia, deposed that there used to be a frequent quarrel between Gajjan Singh and his brothers in respect of turn of water. The dispute over turn of water took place a day earlier i.e. 21.6.2002, which was settled with the mediation of her brothers and sisters. It was on 22.6.2002 at about 10 A.M., her husband and Sajjan Singh were ploughing the field and when in the presence of her brother Satnam Singh, Rattan Singh inflicted kahi blow on Gajjan Singh. In the cross-examination, Harjinder Kaur deposed that her parental village is at a distance of 10-15 kms from her in-laws village and that her brother Satnam Singh had come to the village at about 8.A.M. On the date of occurrence, her husband had gone to his field at about 6.00 A.M. She stated that she had taken tea for her husband in the field. She and Satnam Singh came forward to rescue her husband from the clutches of Rattan Singh by physical intervention. She caught her husband physically whereas Satnam Singh caught Rattan Singh physically. Sajjan Singh also caught his brother Rattan Singh and Gajjan Singh, husband of (PW-3) Harjinder Kaur with the attempt to separate them but none i.e. Satnam Singh, Sajjan Singh and she herself received any injury. PW-4 Satnam Singh has also supported the prosecution case. In the cross-examination, he has deposed that at 9.00 A.M., tea was ready in the house of her sister and that the place of occurrence is at a distance of 15-20 kms from the house of her sister. It took about 10-15 minutes to reach to the place of occurrence. He arranged a car from the bus stand Ghasitpur and brought the same within 30-45 minutes and his clothes were blood stained. They reached the hospital at about 12.30/1.00 P.M. and the police reached about half an hour later. 5. It took about 10-15 minutes to reach to the place of occurrence. He arranged a car from the bus stand Ghasitpur and brought the same within 30-45 minutes and his clothes were blood stained. They reached the hospital at about 12.30/1.00 P.M. and the police reached about half an hour later. 5. PW-8 Didar Singh has proved the various steps of investigations including the disclosure statement (Ex PQ) suffered by the appellant and the recovery of kahi (Ex. PS). Such kahi was taken into possession on 30.6.2002. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that PW-3 Harjinder Kaur and PW-4 Satnam Singh are the procured and interested witnesses. They were not present at the place of occurrence. It is so apparent from the fact that occurrence is said to be taken place at 10 A.M. but the information to the police was made only at 1.10 P.M. Such unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR made the prosecution case as doubtful. 7. It is also argued that the injuries in the post mortem report (Ex. PA) do not support the prosecution case that the injuries have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. Therefore, there is material contradiction in the ocular version and that of the medical evidence. Thus, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the commission of crime by the appellant alone. 8. The entire prosecution evidence was put to the appellant for his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant has not come up with any stand except to state that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. 9. The main stress on the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the FIR suffers from gross delay & latches and that it was a case of sudden provocation without pre-mediation of the mind and thus, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 302 of the Code is made out. The deceased-Gajjan Singh and the appellant-Rattan Singh are the real brothers and the dispute has taken place at the spur of the moment in respect of the irrigation of fields. Therefore, for the injuries caused the appellant is liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. 10. The deceased-Gajjan Singh and the appellant-Rattan Singh are the real brothers and the dispute has taken place at the spur of the moment in respect of the irrigation of fields. Therefore, for the injuries caused the appellant is liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find that any interference is called for in the present appeal. As per the prosecution case, the occurrence has taken place at 10.00 AM on 22.6.2002. The FIR has been lodged by the police at 1.10. P.M. i.e. approximately with in 3 hours. The police station is 7 kms from the place of occurrence. Generally, an attempt of near relations is to provide the medical assistance so as to save the life. Since, the incident is said to have taken place at 10.00 A.M., sometime must have been spent to organize medical help and also to lodge report with the police station located 7 kms from the place of occurrence. The delay of 3 hours in lodging of the report is not such which creates doubt on the prosecution version. 11. From the statement of PW-3 Harjinder Kaur, it is come on record that deceased has taken tea and meals at 6.00 A.M. therefore, it was, not unusual for his wife and his brother-in-law to go to the field for delivering a cup of tea to the deceased. Such is a natural conduct amongst the villagers. Therefore, neither the presence of Harjinder Kaur nor the delay in lodging of FIR is such which creates doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution version. Such oral evidence stands corroborated by the medical evidence when PW-1 Dr. Amandeep Singh has appeared and deposed the injuries as mentioned above. Such injuries can be caused by the reverse side of the sharp edged weapon. The nature and kind of injures suffered by the deceased corroborates the eyewitnesses account proved by PW-3 Harjinder Kaur and PW-4 Satnam Singh. 12. The said ocular evidence is not supported only for medical evidence but also the fact that kahi (Ex. P-3) is recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused. Such disclosure statement and recovery in pursuance of such disclosure statement supports the culpability of commission of crime by the appellant alone. 13. 12. The said ocular evidence is not supported only for medical evidence but also the fact that kahi (Ex. P-3) is recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused. Such disclosure statement and recovery in pursuance of such disclosure statement supports the culpability of commission of crime by the appellant alone. 13. We also do not find any merit in the argument that the incident has occurred suddenly without any premediation mind. Firstly, the prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed that there was altercation a day earlier. With the said background, the appellant has attempted to irrigate the fields. Still further, appellant has inflicted many injuries on the person of the deceased. It is not a case of single blow on a non vital part which may lead to inference that the injury was caused neither with the intention or knowledge of causing death. Multiple injuries do not make out to be a case of exception to Section 300 of the Code. 14. Learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence to return a finding that the appellant is guilty of commission of crime and such finding does not warrant any interference in appeal. Dismissed. --------------