ORAL JUDGMENT Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH When this appeal was called out for hearing, Mr. Amar Nath Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, informed this Court that appellant no.2 Parichhan Sahani had died during the pendency of the appeal on 04.08.2013, but he could not file an affidavit in support thereof as no competent person was forthcoming to swear the affidavit. In our view, there is no point in detaining this case any longer as it has already been pending in this Court for 22 years. 2. The two appellants having been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the I.P.C.’) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 363 of 1990/62 of 1990, have filed this appeal assailing the said judgment of conviction and sentence. They are alleged to have fatally assaulted one Butan Sahani, who died at the Head Injury Department of Patna Medical College Hospital on the day next to his assault. 3. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan (Ext.1) as recorded at the Head Injury Department of Patna Medical College Hospital by the A.S.I. of Pirbahore Police Station, Patna, on 23.02.1990 at 10 pm. Informant is Kedar Sahani (P.W.6), who is the son of the deceased Butan Sahani. It is, inter-alia, alleged that at 6 am on 22.02.1990 when his father Butan Sahani went out of the house to answer nature’s call near banana plantation adjacent to the house, he was fatally assaulted by the two appellants by lathi. Hearing his cry for help, family members rushed out of the house and saw the occurrence and seeing them the two appellants escaped. Butan Sahani was then rushed to Muzaffarpur Sadar Hospital, from where he was immediately referred to Patna Medical College Hospital. He was brought to Patna Medical College Hospital but died on 23.02.1990. The reason for this fatal assault was allegedly that Mahesh, son of appellant Chulhai Sahani and the son of Butan Sahani had gone to a Mela in the morning of 21.02.1990. In the evening Butan Sahani’s son returned but Chulhai Sahani’s son did not return. He was brought to Patna Medical College Hospital but died on 23.02.1990. The reason for this fatal assault was allegedly that Mahesh, son of appellant Chulhai Sahani and the son of Butan Sahani had gone to a Mela in the morning of 21.02.1990. In the evening Butan Sahani’s son returned but Chulhai Sahani’s son did not return. Appellant Chulhai Sahani called for elders of the village to meet alleging that Butan Sahani had kidnapped his son for the purpose of selling, which was naturally denied by Butan Sahani and this had enraged Chulhai Sahani, who early next morning finding opportunity had fatally assaulted Butan Sahani on his head killing him. This fardbeyan was recorded at the Patna Medical College Hospital in the night on 23.02.1990. As the place of occurrence was within Ahiyapur Police Station, District Muzaffarpur, it was then forwarded there, where upon receipt thereof a formal first information report was drawn up on 09.03.1990 under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. by Anil Kumar Jha, Officer-in-charge of Ahiyapur P.S., as also the Investigating Officer (P.W.7). Upon investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the two appellants and cognizance of the offence having been taken, the case was committed to the court of session. The appellants pleaded not guilty and were tried and convicted as aforementioned. Hence this appeal. 4. In order to establish the prosecution case, eight witnesses have been examined. We may mention here that after the prosecution witnesses, as aforesaid, had been examined and the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.’) and final hearing was taken up, on behalf of the prosecution an application was filed in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C. for leave to produce the another witness and exhibit some documents, which prosecution came to know in course of hearing. Permission was granted and one witness was examined as court witness and he exhibited one document, which was admitted without protest. Accordingly, the accused persons were re-examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the facts and circumstances, as emanated from this witness, were also put to the accused. We will discuss in detail the said facts at the relevant stage. 5. P.W.1 Devendar Kumar Sahani is the nephew of the deceased and lives in the same house. Accordingly, the accused persons were re-examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the facts and circumstances, as emanated from this witness, were also put to the accused. We will discuss in detail the said facts at the relevant stage. 5. P.W.1 Devendar Kumar Sahani is the nephew of the deceased and lives in the same house. He is a young boy, who had come on hearing the scream of his uncle and saw the appellants assaulting his uncle. He identified the accused in the dock. In his cross-examination, he admits that the houses of the accused and the prosecution party are adjacent. They had no previous enmity. He was given a suggestion that some thieves might have killed his uncle, which he naturally denied. He is otherwise unshaken in his cross-examination. 6. P.W. 2 is Rama Sahani, who is the nephew being sister’s son of the deceased. He states that on hearing the scream of his uncle, who had gone in the early morning to answer nature’s call, he rushed out and found his uncle to have collapsed near a dried Nala, which is in the banana plantation. He had seen the two appellants assaulting his uncle. His testimony also remains unshaken. 7. We then have P.W.3 Sakhia Devi, the daughter-in-law of the deceased, who is the wife of P.W.4 Kailash Sahani. She states that she is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She also states that in the early morning when she was in the court yard, she heard scream of her father-in-law and she rushed out and saw appellants Chulhai Sahani and Parichhan Sahani assaulting her father-in-law. After he fell down, the appellants escaped. In her cross-examination, she states that she was the first person out of the house and she had found the deceased Butan Sahani lying on the village road. Butan Sahani was then brought into the house. She had seen the appellants assaulting Butan Sahani three to four times. She also remained unshaken in her cross-examination. 8. We then have P.W.4 Kailash Sahani (the informant), who is the nephew of the deceased Butan Sahani and who was also staying with the deceased. He clearly states that at 6 am when Butan Sahani had gone to answer nature’s call in the banana plantation adjacent to the house, this witness was returning from the Mela when he found his uncle lying grievously hurt. He clearly states that at 6 am when Butan Sahani had gone to answer nature’s call in the banana plantation adjacent to the house, this witness was returning from the Mela when he found his uncle lying grievously hurt. He along with others immediately then carried him in a tempo to the Medical College Hospital, from where he was referred to Patna and in Patna, in course of treatment, he died and was cremated at Patna itself. He is not a witness to the assault. He denies the suggestion that some thieves could have assaulted Butan Sahani. 9. We then have P.W.5 Ram Babu Sahani, who is son of deceased Butan Sahani. His evidence is not of any importance; inasmuch as he was not at the place of occurrence when the occurrence took place. He was unable to make any positive contribution to the prosecution case. 10. P.W. 6 Kedar Sahani is another son of Butan Sahani. He states that in the morning when he was in the house, his father had gone out to answer nature’s call. He heard shouts. He rushed out and found the two appellants assaulting his father, who had fallen near the Nala in the banana plantation. Seeing him and others who had arrived there, the appellants ran away. Butan Sahani was then carried to the Medical College Hospital and then to Patna, where he died. In the cross-examination, he states that a day prior to this incident, that would be 21.02.1990, his brother Ram Babu (P.W.5) along with Kailash Sahani (P.W.4) had gone to Mutlupur Mela. Son of appellant Chulhai Sahani, Mahesh also joined them. They all returned back, but Mahesh did not come back. This enraged appellant Chulhai Sahani. There were some altercations between him and deceased Butan Sahani in the night and this led to the assault the next morning. He states that the Police had interrogated him and he had clearly stated about the altercation between his father Butan Sahani and Chulhai Sahani previous day. He had seen the assault on his father being made from both the sides on the head by the two appellants. He admits that he cannot say how many lathi blows his father had received. He denied the suggestion that he had lodged a false case. 11. He had seen the assault on his father being made from both the sides on the head by the two appellants. He admits that he cannot say how many lathi blows his father had received. He denied the suggestion that he had lodged a false case. 11. P.W. 7 is Anil Kumar Jha, Investigating Officer, who was also, at the relevant time, Officer-in-charge of Ahiyapur Police Station. He states that he had received the fardbeyan as recorded at Patna on 09.03.1990 and registered it as a formal F.I.R. He proves the fardbeyan, the F.I.R. and the inquest. He then goes to the place of occurrence and investigates the same though that was of no consequence because this was being done almost 15 days after the occurrence. The fardbeyan was recorded at Patna on 23.02.1990 and the F.I.R. was registered at Ahiyapur Police Station, District Muzaffarpur, on 09.03.1990. After investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet. There is no other thing of any consequence in the statement of this witness. 12. The last witness is Dr. Arbind Kumar Singh (P.W.8), who conducted the post-mortem examination. He states that he was the Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna. He states that on examination of the dead body of Butan Sahani, he found that the skull had been fractured at two places. The dura mater was also found spilled. In his opinion, the injuries were caused by hard blunt substance like lathi. 13. This is all the evidence of the prosecution. Upon this evidence being recorded, when the appellants were closely and duly questioned by the trial court under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they pleaded ignorance. When argument started, the Additional Public Prosecutor filed an application in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C. praying for examination of a fresh witness. This witness, namely, Ram Narayan. Prasad was permitted to be examined as Court Witness No.1 and his deposition was recorded. He is an Advocate’s Clerk and he proves a complaint petition filed under the signature of appellant Chulhai Sahani before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffapur, which was typed in his presence. It was typed on the basis of a draft prepared by Sri Ram Shobhit Mishra, Advocate and Chulhai Sahani had signed the complaint for being filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffapur in his presence. The complaint petition is marked as Ext.5. 14. It was typed on the basis of a draft prepared by Sri Ram Shobhit Mishra, Advocate and Chulhai Sahani had signed the complaint for being filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffapur in his presence. The complaint petition is marked as Ext.5. 14. From the cross-examination of the said witness (C.W.1), we do not find that any attempt was made by the defence to challenge the correctness of the complaint petition or deny the same. From the order-sheet of the trial court, what we find is Ext.6, which is the order-sheet dated 22.02.1990 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffapur upon that complaint, referring the matter to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. This complaint totally corroborates the prosecution story of the motive. This complaint, as filed by Chulhai Sahani on 22.02.1990 clearly states that his son Mahesh had gone to the Mela along with sons of Butan Sahani, but Butan Sahani had managed to kidnap his son, who had not returned. He, therefore, requested the Court to proceed against Butan Sahani under Section 364 I.P.C. This is consistent with the prosecution evidence as appears from the fardbeyan and evidence of the witnesses that this is the incident, which enraged the appellants in taking this extreme action of fatal assault on Butan Sahani. The complaint was filed on 22.02.1990, on which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffapur, the same day, passed an order referring the matter for Police investigation. The prosecution case is that in the morning on 22.02.1990, the incident had taken place and Butan Sahani died on 23.02.1990. This evidence having then been brought on record, the trial court very rightly re-examined the two appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Both were told about the evidence that was then received including the complaint petition filed by Chulhai Sahani, to which both of them pleaded ignorance. The trial court then called for the records from the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, examined the same and found that the signature of Chulhai Sahani on the complaint petition as available on the record of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and his signature as available on the record before the trial court were the same. The trial court also found that Chulhai Sahani, in fact, though had the opportunity to deny the said complaint having been filed by him, did not do so. He just pleaded ignorance. 14. The trial court also found that Chulhai Sahani, in fact, though had the opportunity to deny the said complaint having been filed by him, did not do so. He just pleaded ignorance. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the daughter-in-law of the deceased Sakhia Devi (P.W.3) has stated in her deposition before the trial court that she was the first one to reach the place of occurrence and she had found her father-in-law lying on the village road near the house, whereas, rest of the witnesses stated that he had dropped and was found lying grievously injured on the dried Nala near the banana plantation. This is a major contradiction as to the place of occurrence. That not being answered, the benefit must accrue to the appellants. 15. Having considered the matter, in our view, the said submission appears to be unfounded. The evidence is clear that this Nala (drain) was a dried Nala near the banana plantation. In the villages, people walk along the drain embankment, which is only a matter of perception whether one can call it a village road or an embankment of a drain. Evidence is consistent that this Nala was a dried Nala. This is too minor a thing and cannot be taken notice of, much less to establish any contradiction. 16. It is then submitted on behalf of the appellants that there has been inordinate delay in lodging the first information report. We are again not impressed. The delay in lodging the fardbeyan is duly explained. Upon Butan Sahani being critically injured, he was rushed to a Hospital at Muzaffarpur, from where he was referred to Patna Medical College Hospital, where in the Head Injury Department, he was admitted and in course of treatment died. Fardbeyan of the informant was recorded then and there. There has been a delay of 15 days in registering the formal F.I.R., but that is because the fardbeyan was to be sent from Patna to Ahiyapur Police Station in the district of Muzaffarpur. There is no denial of the fardbeyan being recorded on the date, time and place as stated herein nor is there any dispute with regard to the date and time of instituting the F.I.R. as mentioned therein. The delay is of no consequence. 17. There is no denial of the fardbeyan being recorded on the date, time and place as stated herein nor is there any dispute with regard to the date and time of instituting the F.I.R. as mentioned therein. The delay is of no consequence. 17. It is then submitted that there is no independent witness and all the witnesses are closely related witnesses from one house itself. Again we are not impressed. In the early morning of February at about 6 am, which is about sunrise time, in a small hamlet what else can we expect that the first and immediate witness would be the family members. Then the villagers are expected to come much later. They have not seen the occurrence and their depositions are of no assistance. Therefore, to say that there being no independent witness, the prosecution case becomes doubtful cannot be accepted. 18. It is then submitted that the first Investigating officer having not been examined, caused prejudice to the defence. We are again not impressed. There is no first or second Investigating Officer. P.W. 7 Anil Kumar Jha is the only Investigating Officer. He had registered the F.I.R. and taken up the investigation upon himself. A person, who registers or who records the fardbeyan, may be a Police Officer, but he cannot not become the Investigating Officer, for role of Investigating Officer is assigned by the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, where the F.I.R. is registered. In this case, the fardbeyan was recorded in Head Injury Department of the Patna Medical College Hospital by A.S.I. of Pirbahore Police Station, Patna, and as the place of occurrence was within Ahiyapur Police Station, District Muzaffarpur, the said fardbeyan was forwarded to Ahiyapur Police Station, where a formal F.I.R. was registered. P.W.7 was the Officer-in-charge of Ahiyapur Police Station and he assigned the investigation to himself. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that the incident is more than 24 years old by now and appellant no.1 Chulhai Sahani is about 64 years old and as such considering his age, the Court may take a compassionate view. We regret our inability to consider this aspect of the matter. In terms of Section 302 of the I.P.C., there is no discretion in the Court as the only discretion is to award death sentence or life imprisonment. There is no third option available to us. We regret our inability to consider this aspect of the matter. In terms of Section 302 of the I.P.C., there is no discretion in the Court as the only discretion is to award death sentence or life imprisonment. There is no third option available to us. Therefore, this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is devoid of any substance. 20. Thus, having considered the entire evidence, we are of the view the prosecution has been consistent in its case and has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The guilt of the appellants stands established. It cannot be urged that the altercation was all of a sudden or at the spur of the moment. There had been an altercation and dispute a night before the incident, whereafter the appellants found Butan Sahani near the banana plantation alone in the early hours of the morning and fatally assaulted him. It was nothing but a premeditated homicidal act of the appellants, which amounted to murder. We, thus, find no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court against the appellants are hereby affirmed. The bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled. 21. Let the records be transmitted to the lower court immediately. The appellants shall surrender in the court below within one month from today to serve out their sentence. In case the trial court finds that appellant no.2, namely, Parichhan Sahani is dead, then the appeal before us, insofar as it relates to him, would be deemed to have abated. Appeal dismissed.