JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. (1) THIS Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-2-2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S. T. Case No. 120/5 of 2004 convicting the appellant under Section 302,1. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo R. I. for three months. (2) THE case of prosecution is that on 17- 2-2003 there was a quarrel between the accused persons (appellant and two others already acquitted) and the wife of the deceased over driving of a buffalo of the accused persons which was eating away the cattle feed inside his cowshed. Just after the quarrel, when the deceased had been to the backyard (Bari) of his house to attend the call of nature, accused Ekamra Sa, the present appellant, followed him with a spade and dealt a blow on his head. Hearing the cry of the deceased, his wife and daughter rushed to the backyard and saw the present appellant running away. THE deceased was brought to the house of his younger brother (PW 2). THE wife of the deceased, seeing severe bleeding injury on her husband's head, took him to the Rengali Police Station and lodged F. I. R. basing on which a case was registered under Sections 325, 323 and 307, I. P. C. on the same day. Seeing the condition of the injured, he was shifted to Jharsuguda Headquarters Hospital and from there to Bulla Medical College and Hospital where while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries. THEreafter, the case was turned to one under Section 302, I. P. C. and on completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the present appellant and two others under Sections 302/114,I. P. C. The plea of the accused persons was of complete denial of the allegations. (3) IN order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses including the I. O. and the Doctor and exhibited 13 documents including the postmortem report and the chemical examination report. The defence examined none. (4) THE trial Court, on completion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the present appellant as already indicated hereinbefore. It, however, acquitted the two other accused persons. Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the appellant, assails the impugned judgment on the following grounds :- (i) The F. I. R. (Ext. The defence examined none. (4) THE trial Court, on completion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the present appellant as already indicated hereinbefore. It, however, acquitted the two other accused persons. Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the appellant, assails the impugned judgment on the following grounds :- (i) The F. I. R. (Ext. 4) is a manufactured one and was not received in the court of time. (ii) P. Ws. 4 and 5 had not seen the occurrence, since in view of their own evidence they reached the spot after the assault. Therefore, the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5 cannot be taken into consideration, more particularly the evidence of P. W. 5, who is a child witness. (iii) The evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 is that they had not heard the shout of the accused and both of them have developed the story in the Court. (iv) Till preparation of the inquest report the name of the accused was not known. (v) Lastly, he argued that the case, if proved, comes under the purview of Section 304,I. P. C. and not Section 302,I. P. C, as there was a sudden quarrel and the accused gave only one blow on the deceased with a spade. (5) MR. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently urged that the evidence of P. W. 5, who is a child witness, and her mother (P. W. 4) is very clear, cogent and unimpeachable. Both of them have specifically stated that hearing the cry of the deceased they rushed to the spot and saw the appellant running away throwing the spade. In fact, the FIR was lodged at Rengali P. S. on the very date of occurrence, i.e., 17-2- 2003 at 10.00 p.m. by P. W. 4. Thereafter, police sent the deceased to the District Headquarters Hospital, Jharsuguda and despatched the F. I. R. to the court on 18-2-2003 and it was received in court on the same day. Therefore, there was no delay in lodging the FIR. P. Ws. 2 and 3 are immediate post occurrence witnesses. Their evidence is that hearing the shout of the deceased they rushed to the spot and there P. W. 5 disclosed that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by means of the spade lying at the spot. Therefore, there was no delay in lodging the FIR. P. Ws. 2 and 3 are immediate post occurrence witnesses. Their evidence is that hearing the shout of the deceased they rushed to the spot and there P. W. 5 disclosed that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by means of the spade lying at the spot. Lastly, he urged that the case is not coming under the purview of Section 304 but Section 302,I. P. C. (6) PERUSED the LCR. P. W. 1 who treated the patient first, found one incised wound of size 6" x 6" x 1" bone deep over the lateral side of temporal parietal region. He proved Ext. 1, the injury report, and opined that the injury as per Ext. 1 could be possible by the spade (M. O. I.). He also proved his opinion (Ext. 2) and deposed that he found dried stains of blood on the front side and back side of the blade. Nothing has been elicited from him in cross-examination to discredit his evidence. P. W. 2 is the elder brother of the deceased and a material witness. He heard the cry of the deceased and rushed to the spot along with one Dolamani Meher and found the deceased lying with severe bleeding injury on his head and his wife and daughter were crying holding the deceased. A spade was lying there and accused Ekamra Sa was fleeing away. Thereafter, he shifted the deceased to Rengali Police Station along with his daughter and wife. On the advice of the OIC of the Police Station, they shifted the deceased to the Jharsuguda Hospital and from Jharsuguda to VSS Medical College and Hospital, Burla. Inquest was held at Burla and he put his signature on the inquest report (Ext. 3). In cross- examination, he admitted that it was a full moon night and the moon had begun to rise. Excepting P. Ws. 4 and 5 no other person was there near the deceased. He also admitted that the spot is visible from the front of their house and their voice is also audible at the spot and vice versa. P. W. 3 is an independent post occurrence witness. He stated in his chief that hearing shout he rushed to the spot along with P. W. 2, Dolamani Meher and others. There, Rajani Sa (P. W. 5) disclosed that accused Ekamra had assaulted the deceased. P. W. 3 is an independent post occurrence witness. He stated in his chief that hearing shout he rushed to the spot along with P. W. 2, Dolamani Meher and others. There, Rajani Sa (P. W. 5) disclosed that accused Ekamra had assaulted the deceased. The deceased had sustained bleeding injury which was caused by means of the spade lying at the spot. The injury was on the middle of the head of the deceased. They shifted the deceased to the hospital through Rengali police station. In cross-examination, he specifically stated that by the time they arrived at the spot, Rajani (P. W. 5) and her mother (P. W. 4) were there. The deceased was then gasping. Immediately, they shifted the injured to the house of P. W. 2. He also admitted that he had not seen the actual assault. P. W. 4 is the widow of the deceased and proved Ext. 4 (FIR). She specifically stated in her chief that on the date of occurrence at about the dusk, the buffalo of accused Menha Sa (since acquitted) entered inside their cowshed and was eating the husk on the wooden bowl creating problems and inconvenience for our bullock. So, her husband (deceased) drove out the buffalo. The present appellant together with the acquitted accused persons and two others thinking that her husband had beaten the buffalo picked up quarrel with her. The deceased went to the Bari side to attend the call of nature and at that time the present appellant went towards the Bari side holding a spade. Seeing this, she asked her daughter (P. W. 5) to go and see the appellant-Ekamra, as he was going with a spade. Just at that time, her husband shouted "Marigali, Marigali" and her daughter cried out that her father was assaulted by accused Ekamra Sa. Hearing this, P. W. 4 ran to the Bari side and saw the appellant and other acquitted accused persons running away and her husband lying with severe bleeding injury on account of the blow dealt by the spade on the middle of his head. A spade was lying there. Thereafter, her husband was shifted to Rengali P. S. and from there to Jharsuguda Hospital and lastly to VSS Medical College and Hospital, Burla. A spade was lying there. Thereafter, her husband was shifted to Rengali P. S. and from there to Jharsuguda Hospital and lastly to VSS Medical College and Hospital, Burla. She narrated the incident orally which was reduced to writing by the OIC of the Rengali P. S. She put her signature on the said FIR (Ext. 4). By the time she reached the spot, she found her husband lying with bleeding injury. Nothing has been elicited from her in the cross-examination. P. W. 5 is the daughter of the deceased and a child witness. While narrating the incident she specifically stated that her father drove away a buffalo belonging to accused Ekamra from their cowshed for which the accused persons picked up quarrel with her mother since by that time her father had been to attend the call of nature. P. W. 4, her mother, saw the present appellant goint towards Bari side with a spade and told her to go and see him. When she reached the Bari side, she heard her father was crying that he was assaulted by the accused. She heard the shout coming from the side of their cow dung pit. When she reached there, she saw accused Menha Sa and Ramesh Sa running away from the spot. Seeing her, accused Ekamra, the present appellant, threw the spade and fled away. Her mother also came and they saw the deceased lying near the cow dung pit with bleeding injury from the middle of his head. In cross-examination, she admitted that the houses of Sriram Sa (P. W. 2) and other witnesses situated at Bhuliapada were at a distance of 200 yards from her house. She also admitted that if somebody shouts from her house, it will not be audible at Bhuliapada. She specifically stated that when they were inside their house they heard the shouts of her father and then they rushed to the Bari side and there they saw her father lying near the cow dung pit. Nothing has been elicited from her in cross-examination to discard her evidence. P. W. 6 is the seizure witness in presence of whom the blood stained earth coupled with human hairs and a spade were seized from the courtyard of the deceased under Exts. 5 and 6. P. W. 7 is the Gram Rakhi and a witness to the seizure of the blade of spade vide Ext. P. W. 6 is the seizure witness in presence of whom the blood stained earth coupled with human hairs and a spade were seized from the courtyard of the deceased under Exts. 5 and 6. P. W. 7 is the Gram Rakhi and a witness to the seizure of the blade of spade vide Ext. 7. P. W. 8 is the A. S. I. then attached to Rengali P. S. He first investigated into the case, prepared the spot map, seized the blade of the spade and other materials under Exts. 5 to 7, recorded the statement of the informant and handed over the charge of investigation to the O. I. C. In cross-examination, he specifically stated that P. W. 4 did not name the other accused except Ekamra Sa and she also stated that the accused persons picked up quarrel with her since by that time her husband had been to attend the call of nature. P. W. 9 is the doctor of VSS Medical College, Burla, who treated the deceased. P. W. 10 is the A. S. I. of VSS Medical College Out-Post who registered an U. D. Case, prepared the inquest report and after the case was transferred to Rengali P. S. closed the enquiry and submitted Final Form under Ext. 10. In cross-examination, he stated that the witnesses did not disclose the name of the assailants to him. P. W. 11 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries :- "(i) A stitched wound on the scalp from left parietal to right parietal 13 c.m. long having 8 Nos. of stitches. On opening the scalp I found fracture of scalp 12 c.m. long corresponding to the external injury; and (ii) Dural tear with laceration of brain corresponding the above injury." He opined that the death was due to coma as a result of the injury to the brain. The injuries were antemortem in nature and sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. In cross-examination, he stated that such injuries may or may not cause instant death or put the injured into coma. P. W. 12 is the I. O., who first registered the case for the offence under Sections 325/326/307, I. P. C. and directed the A. S. I. (P. W. 8) to take up investigation. In cross-examination, he stated that such injuries may or may not cause instant death or put the injured into coma. P. W. 12 is the I. O., who first registered the case for the offence under Sections 325/326/307, I. P. C. and directed the A. S. I. (P. W. 8) to take up investigation. On receipt of report from the A. S. I. with regard to the death of the deceased, he withdrew the charge of investigation from P. W. 8 and he himself investigated into the case and ultimately filed charge sheet against the three accused persons. On careful scanning of the evidence available on record it is crystal clear from the evidence of P. W. 4 (wife of the deceased) and P. W. 5 (daughter of the deceased) that on the date of occurrence there was a quarrel between P. W. 4 on one hand and the appellant and other accused persons (since acquitted) on the other, as the deceased drove their buffalo. Some time after the quarrel, the deceased went to the bari side to attend the call of nature. As the appellant followed him with a spade, P. W. 4 asked her daughter (P. W. 5) to go and see. Immediately thereafter the deceased cried "Marigali, Marigali" and hearing the same P. W. 5 followed by P. W. 4 rushed to the spot. Both of them saw the de-ceased lying with bleeding injury and the present appellant running away throwing the spade. In fact, there is no material to disbelieve the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5. On the other hand, their evidence is corroborated by P. Ws. 2 and 3, who have stated that hearing shout of the deceased, his wife (P. W. 4) and daughter (P. W. 5), they immediately went to the spot and saw the deceased lying with bleeding injury. P. Ws. 4 and 5 were crying holding the deceased. The appellant had already fled away and the spade was lying at the spot. P. W. 5 disclosed that the appellant had assaulted her father. The evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 remained un-assailed despite lengthy cross-examination. It is clear from the aforesaid analysis of evidence that neither P. W. 5 nor P. W. 4 had seen the actual assault on the deceased by the present appellant and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 remained un-assailed despite lengthy cross-examination. It is clear from the aforesaid analysis of evidence that neither P. W. 5 nor P. W. 4 had seen the actual assault on the deceased by the present appellant and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is apt to say that in dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind may take the place of proof. Suspicion, however, strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof and, therefore, the Court has to judge carefully and ensure that the conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. However, it is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturisation of actual incident, but the circumstances cannot fail. Therefore, many a time, it is aptly said that "men may tell lie, but circumstances do not". In the instant case, the chain of circumstances in the commission of the crime is complete and link between the criminal and the crime is also complete. (7) CONSIDERING the evidence meticulously we see that the combined effect of all facts is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the appellant. The contention advanced by the learned counsel Mr. Ragada is that since the name of the accused has not been disclosed in Col. 9 of the inquest report, it is unsafe to accept the prosecution case. But it has been held by the Apex Court in Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of U. P. (2010) 2 SCC 583 : ( AIR 2010 SC 773 ) that the purpose of the inquest is to ascertain prima facie nature of death and to find out whether there are injuries on the dead body. Therefore, nondisclosure of the name of the assailant in the inquest report cannot be a ground to throw the entire prosecution case. Moreover, in the instant case, the FIR was lodged much prior to the inquest report and the informant disclosed the name of the assailant in the said FIR. At the first instance, P. Ws. 4 and 5 disclosed the name of the appellant to P. Ws. 2 and 3 as the assailant of the deceased. So, there is no force on the argument advanced by Mr. Ragada. At the first instance, P. Ws. 4 and 5 disclosed the name of the appellant to P. Ws. 2 and 3 as the assailant of the deceased. So, there is no force on the argument advanced by Mr. Ragada. (8) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the FIR was not received in the court on time. As it appears, the FIR was lodged at the P. S. at 10.00 p.m. on 17-2-2003. As per the evidence of the I. O., the distance between the court and the police station is 70 kms. and it takes 4 to 5 hours to cover such distance. So, there is nothing to be surprised if the FIR is dispatched on the next date morning, i.e., 18-2- 2003. From the formal FIR available on record it appears that it was received in court on 18-2-2003. THE fact that the FIR was put up before the Presiding Officer on the next day does not mean that there was delay in submitting the FIR to the Court. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant also fails. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the act of the appellant will come under the purview of Section 304, I. P. C, since the accused allegedly dealt a single blow to the deceased on the blunt side of the spade. In the instant case, there was a quarrel between the wife of the deceased (P. W. 4) and the appellant. Some time after the quarrel when the deceased had gone to the bari side to attend the call of nature, the appellant went with a spade and dealt the blow. The attending facts and circumstances do not suggest that due to a sudden quarrel the appellant being utterly enraged at the grave and sudden provocation of the deceased dealt the fatal blow. Therefore, none of the exceptions to Section 304, I. P. C. will apply in the present case. (9) IN view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly convicted the present appellant and there is no reasonable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. The CRLA is accordingly dismissed. B. K. NAYAK, J.:- 14. I agree. Application dismissed.