Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1136 (GAU)

Prodip Das v. State of Assam

2012-09-26

I.A.ANSARI, SWAPAN CHANDRA DAS

body2012
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. This criminal appeal, under Section 374 of CrPC, has been registered on a petition filed by the convict-appellant, Prodip Das, on 17.08.2007, from District Jail, Golaghat, forwarded through the Superintendent of the said jail, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated, 9.8.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, in Sessions Case No. 128/2005, under Section 302 of IPC. On a charge framed against the accused, learned Sessions Judge found him guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for life and to pay, a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment, to undergo SI for three months. Heard learned counsel, Mr. S. Borgohain for the appellant, and learned P.P., Assam, Mr. Z. Kamar, for the State respondent. 2. Briefly stated, fact of the case is that the accused appellant, Prodip Das, is the eldest son of the deceased victim, Ranjan Das, through his first wife. The accused Prodip Das with his mother, his wife and children used to reside in a separate hut in a separate mess. The deceased Ranjan Das, with his second wife, the informant Sukriti Das (PW1), and his children, through second wife, namely, Pratap Das (PW4), Sumita Das (PW7) and others, used to reside in a separate hut and in a separate mess. Both the houses of the accused-appellant and the deceased were in the same premises. Relationship between the accused and his father was bitter since long and there used to be quarrel between the two families every now and then. 2.1 On 09.06.2005, at about 5.30 pm, Prodip Das, the accused, all on a sudden, attacked his father, the deceased Ranjan Das, and struck a severe cut blow on the neck of his father in the courtyard. As a result of the assault, Ranjan Das died instantly. After committing the murder of his father, Pradip Das left the house throwing the 'bothi dao'(weapon of offence) in the tea garden/bush of Gajen Sarma and surrendered at Borpathar Police Station. A GD Entry was made at PS. On the instruction of O/C of PS, PW10, SI Apurba Kumar Bora, went to the spot and found the dead body of Ranjan Das and he arranged for guarding of the dead body. Thereafter, he returned to the P.S. and arrested the accused Prodip Das, who was at PS. A GD Entry was made at PS. On the instruction of O/C of PS, PW10, SI Apurba Kumar Bora, went to the spot and found the dead body of Ranjan Das and he arranged for guarding of the dead body. Thereafter, he returned to the P.S. and arrested the accused Prodip Das, who was at PS. On the following day, in the morning, at about 7.00 am, Sukriti Das (PW1), second wife of deceased Ranjan Das, lodged an FIR stating that her husband was cut by the accused before her eyes and that, after cutting her husband, the accused fled away throwing the dao in the jungle. On receipt of that FIR, O/C Borpathar PS registered FIR No. 42/2005 under Section 302 of IPC and SI A.K. Bora (PW10) was entrusted with the charge of investigation. 2.2 In course of investigation, SI A.K. Bora prepared inquest report over the dead body and, thereafter, forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination. He seized the weapon of offence (bothi dao), the material Exbt. 1, from the spot, where it was left by the accused. He examined the material witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of CrPC. He collected the postmortem report conducted by Dr. Mukul Sarma(PW9). On conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused Prodip Das for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2.3 Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and, on commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused-appellant, Prodip Das, under Section 302 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.4 Prosecution examined as many as 10(ten) witnesses. PWs 1, 4 and 7 are the second wife, son and daughter (through second wife) respectively of the deceased Ranjan Das and they are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. PW3 is an independent witness of the locality and he found the accused going away after killing his father throwing the 'bothi dao' in the bush and the accused made an extra-judicial confession to -him that he had cut his father. PW2 is a VDP person of the locality and he is also an eye witness of the inquest report as well as seizure of material Exbt. 1 (bothi dao). PW8 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, who saw the occurrence. PW2 is a VDP person of the locality and he is also an eye witness of the inquest report as well as seizure of material Exbt. 1 (bothi dao). PW8 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, who saw the occurrence. PW9 is the medical officer, who conducted the postmortem examination and PW10 is the I.O. of the case. 2.5 Defence cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. After recording of the prosecution evidence was over, accused was examined under Section 313 of CrPC. In his examination under Section 313 of CrPC, the accused stated that his stepmother used to run a liquor business from their house. Around 4.00 pm on the day of occurrence, some people, after getting drunk, were shouting in filthy language. In his house, he had a grown up girl and his stepmother had four grown up girls. He had two minor girls too. Coming from market, he found his stepmother's third daughter serving liquor. When he dragged his younger sister out from inside the house, the people, who were having liquor, assaulted him on the head with a lathi from behind. He could not remember what he found in that room, but he picked up what he had found and brandished the same. At that moment, his father arrived there and it hit his father. Later on, he saw that it was a dao. He, immediately, left for the PS and informed the PS about the incident. He came to learn, at the PS, that his father had died. He did not assault his father intentionally nor did he have any quarrel with him. He claimed innocence. 3. Learned counsel, Mr. Borgohain, in course of his argument, has submitted that PW10 prepared inquest report over the dead body on 10.06.2005, at about 10.30 am, wherein he has clearly mentioned that he - found cut injury in the neck and about seven cut blows were there. The neck was not severed and there was no other injury on other parts of the body; whereas, in the postmortem report, the autopsy surgeon (PW9) found only one cut injury in the neck. This discrepancy between the inquest report and the postmortem report creates a serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case and, hence, the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt. 3.1 The second argument, advanced by learned counsel, is that the seizure witnesses of material Exbt. This discrepancy between the inquest report and the postmortem report creates a serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case and, hence, the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt. 3.1 The second argument, advanced by learned counsel, is that the seizure witnesses of material Exbt. 1 (bothi dao), which was allegedly the weapon of offence, have made contradictory statements about the place from where it was seized, which lays serious doubt about the weapon of offence used by the accused as alleged and the accused is, therefore, entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 3.2 The third argument, advanced by the learned counsel, is that PWs 1, 4 and 7 cannot be believed as eye witnesses of the occurrence in the facts and circumstances of the case and the learned Sessions Judge wrongly relied on them and arrived at a conclusion of guilt of the accused. The judgment, therefore, is, according to the learned counsel, liable to be interfered and set aside. 3.3 The last argument, advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Borgohain, is that the accused allegedly surrendered at the PS after the occurrence, but the GD entry, which was made on his surrender, has not been produced before Court to reveal the truth. The FIR, which was lodged on the following day in the morning, has lost its credence and cannot be relied on. 3.4 Learned P.P., Assam, Mr. Kamar, refuted all the arguments advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Borgohain, specifically referring to the evidence on record and has submitted that the inconsistency between the inquest report(Exbt. 1) and the post-mortem report (Exbt. 3) is of no consequence on the veracity and authenticity of the prosecution case and that in the facts and circumstances, the evidence adduced by PW9, the medical officer, who is an expert on the matter, should be relied on. The evidentiary value of the inquest report cannot be placed at par with the evidence adduced by the medical officer, who conducted the postmortem examination and, so, the observation of the IO, in the inquest report, should be ignored. In support of his contention, learned P.P. referred to Munshi Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2001 SC 3031 : (2002) 1 SCC 55/(para 6) and Radha Mohan Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 2 SCC 450 (paras 12, 13 and 14). In support of his contention, learned P.P. referred to Munshi Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2001 SC 3031 : (2002) 1 SCC 55/(para 6) and Radha Mohan Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 2 SCC 450 (paras 12, 13 and 14). Learned P.P. further submitted that the incident occurred in the broad daylight in the house of the accused and his deceased father in front of P Ws 1, 4 and 7 and they have categorically made the statement that they found the accused striking the fatal blow on the neck of the deceased and, thereafter, going away with the dao in hand throwing it in the 'kheroni'. They have materially corroborated each other and there is no ambiguity in the deposition of the eye witnesses. The evidence of the eye witnesses has further been corroborated by the evidence adduced by PW3, an independent witness of the locality, to whom the accused made an extrajudicial confession about cutting of the neck of his father and in his presence, the accused had thrown away the material Exbt. 1 i.e. the 'bothi dao' in the bush i.e. 'kheroni'. He has also submitted that there is no inconsistency in the deposition of witnesses in respect of the place of recovery of the 'bothi dao'(Exbt 1) and the statement of PW2 has, in no way, confused the prosecution case since PW2 is a VDP personal and in his statement, there may be a typographical mistake in typing the word, "my", which might have been "the", and the word should not be attached undue importance, because of overwhelming evidence on record. The evidence of the eye witnesses i.e. P Ws 1, 4 and 7, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has been rightly relied by the learned Sessions Judge and there is no question of any suspicion in the prosecution case, specially, where the accused himself has made a statement admitting the occurrence that he has killed his father having no intention to kill him. His intention has been established with overwhelming evidence and, therefore, learned P.P. supported the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 4. We have meticulously gone through the evidence on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel of both sides on the points raised and countered during argument. It is an undisputed fact that Ranjan Das died a homicidal death. 4. We have meticulously gone through the evidence on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel of both sides on the points raised and countered during argument. It is an undisputed fact that Ranjan Das died a homicidal death. PW9, Dr. Mukul Sarma, conducted postmortem examination over the dead body and in his deposition, he stated that he found one major extensive cut injury on the right side of the neck extending to the front side of the neck to the posterior aspect of the lap of the neck, major blood vessels including cervical bone and spinal cord wall cut, blood clot was present. No other injury was detected. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage. The injury was ante mortem in nature. He proved the postmortem report, which is marked as Exbt. 3. In cross-examination, he stated that the injury cannot be caused by fall and that the injury may be caused by sharp weapon like dao, etc. 5. Prosecution case is that after committing the offence, the accused went out of the house and had thrown the weapon of offence (bothi dao) in the bush nearby and straightway went to the PS and surrendered. In his statement, under Section 313 CrPC, in response to question No. 9, regarding his surrender at PS, the accused admitted that he had surrendered himself at the PS. Copy of the GD entry, which was made, on surrender of the accused at Borpathar PS, has not been produced before Court. Learned P.P. has submitted that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, non-production of copy of that GD Entry, which was made on surrender of the accused at PS, before the investigation was started, is of no consequence in the face of the overwhelming evidence on record. On going through the evidence of PW10, we find that on surrender of the accused at PS, a GD Entry was made and P W10, as directed by O/C of the PS, went to the spot and found the dead body and he asked the police and local people to guard the dead body and returned to PS and arrested the accused. On the following morning at 7.00 am, PW1, the second wife of the deceased, lodged the FIR (Exbt. 4) and the case was registered. On the following morning at 7.00 am, PW1, the second wife of the deceased, lodged the FIR (Exbt. 4) and the case was registered. The accused admitted to have surrendered at PS, in the evening of the day of occurrence. Since the copy of the GD Entry has not been produced, we are in the dark as to what he stated on his surrender at PS. Any way, we find justification in the submission made by learned P.P. that the non-production of the GD Entry is of no consequence in view of the overwhelming evidence on record. There is no legal impediment in accepting Exbt. 4 as FIR lodged by PW1 on 10.06.2005 at 7.00 am, but it has definitely lost its importance since it was submitted after surrender of the accused and after visit to the place of occurrence by PW10 on the date of occurrence itself. There is nothing in law that a criminal case cannot stand without an FIR. In a given facts and circumstances, a criminal case may be established even without an FIR. In the present case, there is no explanation as to why the FIR was not lodged on 09.06.2005 but in the given facts and circumstances of the case where the accused has surrendered after the occurrence at PS and where the eye witnesses made categorical statements, who cannot be disbelieved, and where the accused himself has made a statement regarding the occurrence, we find nothing to doubt the prosecution case for the delay in lodging the FIR. The Supreme Court, in the case of Ramdas & Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra reported in (2007) 2 SCC 170 , has held- In the light of the totality of the evidence, the court of fact has to consider whether the delay in lodging the report adversely affects the case of the prosecution. That is a matter of appreciation of evidence. There may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the delay. Even in the absence of direct explanation there may be circumstances appearing on record which provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. There are cases where much time is consumed in taking the injured to the hospital for medical aid and, therefore, the witnesses find no time to lodge the report promptly. Even in the absence of direct explanation there may be circumstances appearing on record which provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. There are cases where much time is consumed in taking the injured to the hospital for medical aid and, therefore, the witnesses find no time to lodge the report promptly. There may also be cases where on account of fear and threats, witness may avoid going to the police station immediately. The time of occurrence, the distance to police station, mode of conveyance available, are all factors which have a bearing on the question of delay in lodging the report. It is also possible to conceive of cases where the victim and the members of his or her family belong to such a strata of society that they may not even be aware of their right to report the matter to the police and seek legal action, nor was any such advice was available to them. In the present case, the informant is an illiterate lady. She put her RTI at the bottom of the FIR. Other members of the family are also mostly illiterate. It was the duty of the I.O. to record the FIR, since he visited the place of occurrence on 09.06.2005 after the accused surrendered at PS. For the fault on the part of the police officer, we find no reason to doubt the prosecution case, where the case is, otherwise, established. 6. PW1 is an eye witness of the occurrence. She stated that she returned home from her daughter's house at about 4.00 pm and she was talking to her husband and at that time, the accused, all on a sudden, brought a bothi dao and dealt a cut blow on her husband's head from behind and her husband fell down. The accused, thereafter, fled away. The above statement of the witness has not been shaken in any manner in the cross-examination and there is no room at all to doubt the veracity or authenticity of the statement. 6.1 PW4 stated that at about 1.00 pm, accused came to their house and assaulted him. So out of fear, he took shelter in the nearby house of his sister-in-law and she concealed him in a room. 6.1 PW4 stated that at about 1.00 pm, accused came to their house and assaulted him. So out of fear, he took shelter in the nearby house of his sister-in-law and she concealed him in a room. After a while, his father and mother came out to enquire about him and, on the way, the accused assaulted his father with a dao from the backside and he saw the occurrence from the window of the house, where he was hiding. In cross-examination, he stated that he was kept hidden in the house of the wife of his brother, Bipul. PW8 corroborated the statement of PW4 stating that a dispute (marpit) had taken place between the accused and his younger brother (PW4) and she took PW4 to her house by pulling in her cross examination, PW1 stated that her husband and her son Protap had a quarrel with the accused for hiding her daughter, Sumitra. The sequence of events, as narrated by the witnesses, makes it clear that there was some quarrel between the accused and PW4 in the noon and thereafter, PW4 was hiding, out of fear of the accused, in the house of PW8, wherefrom he claims to have witnessed the occurrence and his statement has not been shaken in any manner in cross-examination and, therefore, we find to reason to disbelieve the statement of PW4. 6.2 PW7 is another eye witness of the occurrence, whose presence has also been stated by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. The accused stated that he dragged his younger sister out of the house and at that point of time, when someone beat him from back and, thereafter, he brandished something, which he found in the room, and it was found to be a dao, which had hit his father. PW7 stated that the accused, armed with a dao, entered in his house and showed it to her by holding her hand and, then, she screamed and the accused left her and cut her father in his neck with that dao. She identified the dao. There is nothing material in her cross-examination to put any doubt on her statement. PW7 stated that the accused, armed with a dao, entered in his house and showed it to her by holding her hand and, then, she screamed and the accused left her and cut her father in his neck with that dao. She identified the dao. There is nothing material in her cross-examination to put any doubt on her statement. In cross-examination of PW1, the incident that Sumita(PW7) was dragged by the accused has been referred to on behalf of the accused and, therefore, we find close connection in the statements of the witnesses and there is no room to doubt their presence on the spot. The hand sketch map, prepared by the I.O. and proved as Exbt. 6, clearly shows that the house of PW8, marked at point-D, is the house, wherefrom the PW4 claims to have seen the occurrence, are close to each other. We, therefore, find no discrepancy or incredibility in the oral statement of the eye witnesses. The evidence of PW3 has further strengthened the prosecution case and corroborated the statement of the eye witnesses. The witness stated that at around 5.30 pm, hearing a hue and cry, he came out to the road and met the accused, who was holding a bothi dao in his hand and the accused told him that he had cut his father. When the witness moved forward, the accused threw the bothi dao in the 'kheroni'. Upon reaching the place of occurrence, he (witness) saw father of the accused lying in the compound of his hut with cut injury in the neck. He is a witness to the material Exbt. 1 i.e. the bothi dao. There is nothing in the cross-examination challenging the statement of this witness. Therefore, the deposition of PW3 has remained unshaken to whom the accused made an extra-judicial confession that he had cut the neck of his father with the dao in his hand, which he threw in the 'kheroni'. 6.3 The above evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4 and 7, coupled with the statement of the accused, made in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC, as already reproduced earlier, has amply established the prosecution case that the accused cut the neck of his father with material Exbt. 1 and, thereafter, he surrendered at PS. 7. 6.3 The above evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4 and 7, coupled with the statement of the accused, made in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC, as already reproduced earlier, has amply established the prosecution case that the accused cut the neck of his father with material Exbt. 1 and, thereafter, he surrendered at PS. 7. Accused in his statement, made while examination under Section 313 of CrPC, brought a story that his stepmother (P W1) would run a liquor business from their house and, at about 4.00 pm, some people, getting drunk, were shouting in the house with filthy language. He found his step-sister (PW7) serving liquor and he dragged her from inside the house, when he was beaten by somebody from behind. This story narrated by the accused, in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC, cannot be read as an evidence, but definitely it should be considered, while appreciating the evidence on record, either against or in favour of the accused. The accused did not adduce any evidence to establish the story, which he projected in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC. The story was also not put to any of the prosecution witnesses during their cross-examination. Therefore, the story of selling liquor and on that issue, there was a dispute or that he was beaten up by somebody, bears no credibility or importance at all. 8. It is a settled law that the statement of accused, under Section 313 of CrPC, is not substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution. It is, however, not a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. If the exculpatory part of his statement is found to be false and the evidence, led by the prosecution, is found reliable, the inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the prosecution. It is also a settled law that if the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement under Section 313 of CrPC cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. 9. It is also a settled law that if the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement under Section 313 of CrPC cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. 9. In the present case, the statement of the accused in respect of his stepmother's involvement in selling liquor and the presence of his step-sister there is clearly false in view of the same having not been supported by any iota of evidence. The other part of the statement, which was in aid of the prosecution evidence, can be safely relied on and there is, therefore, no room at all to doubt the prosecution case as a whole. 10. Regarding inconsistency between the inquest report and the postmortem report, in respect of number of injuries, we have considered the evidence on record. The eye witnesses have stated that the accused dealt a severe blow with material Exbt 1 (bothi dao) on the neck of his father and it cut the neck severely and his father fell down and died on the spot. There is not even a suggestion denying such statement of the witnesses. The accused has taken the plea that when someone hit on his head from behind, he picked up something available near his hand in the room, and brandished it round his head and that material struck the neck of his father and, subsequently, he(accused) found that the material, in his hand, which he brandished, was a dao and his father's neck was cut with that dao. There is no whisper in the evidence on record that more than one cut injury was inflicted. I.O. in Exbt 1 mentioned about seven cut injuries. It is not understood wherefrom he has mentioned it. He was not cross-examined on that issue by the defence. No question was also put to the witnesses by the defence about the number of injuries, while all the eye witnesses stated about inflicting of one cut injury. We may gainfully rely on the case laws, referred to by the learned P.P. In the case of Munshi Prasad (supra), there was clear inconsistency in respect of the injuries mentioned in the inquest report and the PM report. We may gainfully rely on the case laws, referred to by the learned P.P. In the case of Munshi Prasad (supra), there was clear inconsistency in respect of the injuries mentioned in the inquest report and the PM report. The issue was considered by the Apex Court and in paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Apex Court held thus: Let us, however, examine the omissions in either of the documents as produced before the court and consider for ourselves as to whether there is any material difference which would otherwise affect the trial by reason of a doubt as regards the reliability of the prosecution case. Items 4 and 5 in the inquest report are the two basic items, which are said to be missing in the post-mortem report, as such the contention of existence of suspicious nature of prosecution. We, however, cannot lend our concurrence thereto. There may or may not be injuries on the left or the right foot but the fact remains that there is no mention of the same in the postmortem report-does it otherwise affect the credibility of the prosecution case? Post-mortem report is prepared by the doctor who held the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased Indrasan Prasad and his findings have been recorded therein. The document by itself is not a substantive evidence but it is the doctor's statement in court, which has the credibility of a substantive evidence and not the report, which in normal circumstances ought to be used only for refreshing the memory of the doctor witness or to contradict whatever he might say from the witness box. In this context reference may be made to a decision of the Madras High Court in Ramaswami, Re: AIR 1938 Mad 336 :1938 MWN 36. In a similar vein the inquest report also cannot be termed to be a basic or substantive evidence being prepared by the police personnel being a non-medical man and at the earliest stage of the proceeding. In the wake of the aforesaid, a mere omission of a particular injury or indication therein of an additional one cannot, however, invalidate the prosecution case. The evidential value of inquest report cannot be placed at a level as has been so placed by the appellant. In the wake of the aforesaid, a mere omission of a particular injury or indication therein of an additional one cannot, however, invalidate the prosecution case. The evidential value of inquest report cannot be placed at a level as has been so placed by the appellant. Preparation of an inquest report is a part of the investigation within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code and as noticed above, neither the inquest report nor the post-mortem report can be termed to be a basic evidence or substantive evidence and discrepancy occurring therein can neither be termed to be fatal nor even a suspicious circumstance, which would warrant a benefit to the accused and the resultant dismissal of the prosecution case. On the factual score, Mr. Venkataramani relied heavily on the evidence of PW7 stated that the inquest report was prepared on the basis of the information contained in Sanah No. 306 and since the Sanah has not been produced, it has been contended that sanah being the basic information sheet, non-production thereof would entail the consequences of adverse presumption as regards the involvement of the accused persons. Obviously, thus it has been contended that nobody had any clue as to how the incident had occurred. Eloquent as always, Mr. Venkataramani has, in our view, overemphasised the issue. Non-production of a substantive piece of evidence can under certain circumstances bring forth an adverse inference, but not in the present context. Technicality ought not to outweigh the course of justice on the face of trustworthy credible evidence on record and more so when the failure to produce does not go to the root of the prosecution case. Situations, obviously would entail such consequences but in the present context, one cannot possibly stretch it that far. In the case of Radha Mohan Singh (supra), the Apex Court considered the purpose of inquest report and in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, the Court held thus- 12. Learned Counsel has also submitted that as the names of the accused or the weapons carried by them and the names of the eye witnesses had not been mentioned in the inquest report, it clearly showed that by the time the inquest report had been prepared, viz., 8.30 a.m. on 15.3.1979, the prosecution was not sure about its case and the FIR had not come into existence. In support of this contention strong reliance has been placed on some observations made by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P. 1994 SCC(Cri.) 1391 of the reports which read as under:(SCC p. 195). It deserves to be noticed that in the inquest report even the name of the accused has not been mentioned. It also does not contain the names of the eyewitnesses or the gist of the statement of the eyewitnesses. It does not reveal as to how many shots had been fired or how many weapons had been used. The inquest report is not signed by any of the eyewitnesses, although the investigating officer has categorically asserted that Kamlesh and Shiv Charan were present at the place of occurrence when he visited and he recorded their statements. If he had actually recorded their statements, there is no reason why the details which we have found missing from the inquest report should not have been there. and also the following observations made in para 12: (SCC p. 196) Even though the inquest report, prepared under Section 174 CrPC, is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante-timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR. In our opinion, on account of the infirmities as noticed above, the FIR has lost its value and authenticity and it appears to us that the same has been ante-timed and had not been recorded till the inquest proceedings were over at the spot by PW.8. 13. The provision for holding of inquest is contained in Section 174 CrPC and the heading of the section is Police is enquire and report on suicide etc. Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof read as under: 174. 13. The provision for holding of inquest is contained in Section 174 CrPC and the heading of the section is Police is enquire and report on suicide etc. Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof read as under: 174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc- (1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been inflicted. (2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 14. The language of the aforesaid statutory provision is plain and simple and there is no ambiguity therein. An investigation under 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 174. Neither in practice nor in law is it necessary for the person holding the inquest to mention all these details. In view of the law discussed by the Apex Court on the facts of the particular cases, we find the principle, laid down by the Apex Court in the given facts and circumstances of this case, may be fairly applied and we have no hesitation in holding that the inconsistency between the inquest report and postmortem report, in the given fact of the case where the evidence of PW9 remained unshaken, has no bearing on the authenticity of the prosecution case and the defence argument has no merit at all. 11. Regarding the seizure of material Exbt. 1 i.e. the bothi dao, we find PWs 2, 3, 5 and 6 are the witnesses to the seizure. Exbt. 6, the hand sketch map, indicates the spot wherefrom dao was seized. It shows that after the occurrence, the accused went away with dao in his hand as noticed by P W3 and he left it in the kheroni. Referring to the deposition of PW2, learned defence counsel argued that the bothi dao was left in the garden of PW2; whereas, in Exbt. 6, the dao has been shown to be in the garden of one Gajen Sarma. On going through the deposition of P W2, we find that PW2 went to the house of the informant as a VDP Secretary on the command of the police officer and his house was about one and half kilometers away from the place of occurrence. One line of his statement to which the learned defence counsel put a lot of emphasis reads thus-"Upon finding a 'bothi dao' in my garden, police seized it". There is no iota of evidence in the cross-examination or in the evidence of other witnesses that PW2 has got a garden near the house of the accused and deceased. One line of his statement to which the learned defence counsel put a lot of emphasis reads thus-"Upon finding a 'bothi dao' in my garden, police seized it". There is no iota of evidence in the cross-examination or in the evidence of other witnesses that PW2 has got a garden near the house of the accused and deceased. No question was also put to the I.O. that the garden, as mentioned in Exbt. 6, belonged to Gajen Sarma was not correct or that it belonged to PW2. Learned P.P. has rightly submitted that the word, "my" in the above line might have been a typographical mistake and it ought to be 'the". We have also gone through the cross-examination of PW2, wherein the witness, in cross by defence, stated that in the 'kheroni', the bothi dao was found. The other seizure witnesses i.e. PWs 3, 5 and 6 also stated the same fact that dao was seized from the 'kheroni' near the house of the accused and the deceased as indicated in the hand-sketch map. We, therefore, find no material inconsistency in the seizure of material Exbt. 1 and the defence argument has no merit at all. 12. The accused, being the son of the deceased, killed his father mercilessly and one blow was sufficient to cause death. There is nothing in the evidence on record that the accused was provoked to commit the crime in any manner. It is in the evidence that there had been quarrel between the two families and, at one point of time, the accused chased his brother (PW4). It is, therefore, evident that the accused, with the intention to eliminate his father, struck the fatal blow and, hence, we find total justification in the finding of learned Sessions Judge in respect of the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 302 of IPC. 13. The appeal, therefore, fails. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge is upheld. 14. The criminal appeal accordingly stands disposed of. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.