JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - On 29.7.2004 at about 8.30 PM, Mohammad Sadiq elder brother of Mohammad Arif (P.W.1) complainant was murdered opposite shop of Ramesh Kumar (P.W.7) at Jharneshwar Road, Andarkot, Ajmer.Case of the prosecution before the trial court was that accused Abrar and Vakeel Ahmad had caught hold of hands of Mohammad Sadiq whereas Mushtaq s/o Gaus Mohammad, Mohammad Haneef s/o Gafoor, Abdul Wahid, Saeed and Aqeel all sons of Mohammad Haneef alongwith Latif s/o Gafoor and Wasim @ Ikrar s/o Gaus Mohammad caused injuries to Mohammad Sadiq. Latif and Wasim @ Ikrar were summoned as additional accused by the trial court after invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. We are informed by Shri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for accused-appellant Abrar, that the revision petition was allowed by this court and the order summoning Latif and Wasim @ Ikrar as additional accused was quashed. 2. The learned trial court acquitted Mohammad Haneef s/o Gafoor and Abdul Wahid, Saeed and Aqeel all three sons of Mohammad Haneef vide impugned judgment dated 30.6.2008. However, vide said impugned judgment, the trial court convicted Mushtaq for offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and Abrar s/o Gaus Mohammad and Vakeel Ahmad s/o Mohammad Haneef under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Having convicted the above said three appellants, the trial court vide a separate order of even date sentenced them as under:- "Accused, Mushtaq: U/s. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months simple imprisonment. U/s. 4/25, Arms Act: One year rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Accused, Abrar and Vakeel Ahmad: U/s. 302 r.w. 34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months simple imprisonment." 3. Aggrieved against conviction and sentence, Mushtaq has preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No.993/2008, Vakeel Ahmad has instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No.698/2008 and Abrar has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1111/2008. Accused, Abrar and Vakeel Ahmad: U/s. 302 r.w. 34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months simple imprisonment." 3. Aggrieved against conviction and sentence, Mushtaq has preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No.993/2008, Vakeel Ahmad has instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No.698/2008 and Abrar has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1111/2008. We shall decide three separate appeals filed by the convicted accused along with the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan bearing D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1169/2008 to assail acquittal of Mohammad Haneef and his three sons namely Abdul Wahid, Saeed and Aqeel along with D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1235/2008 preferred by the complainant Mohammad Arif also to assail acquittal of above said persons. 4. Criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on written report (Ex.P.1) submitted by Mohammad Arif brother of deceased Mohammad Sadiq before Madan Dan Singh (P.W.19) who was then posted as SHO, P.S. Dargah, District Ajmer. Written report (Ex.P.1) submitted by Mohammad Arif (P.W.1) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P.2) bearing FIR No.106/2004 was registered at Police Station Dargah, District Ajmer, when translated into English reads as under:- "To, The SHO Sahab, P.S. Dargah, Ajmer. Sub.: Regarding murder of my brother Mohammad Sadiq. Sir, It is submitted that my brother Mohammad Sadiq on 29.7.2004 at about 8.30 PM or 9.00 PM was going towards his house. When in order to smoke a cigarette he stopped at Ramesh General Store then Mushtaq s/o Gaus Mohammad, Abrar s/o Gaus Mohammad, Haneef s/o Gafoor, Wahid s/o Haneef, Saeed s/o Haneef, Aqeel s/o Haneef, Vakeel s/o Haneef came armed with knives, lathi, iron rods and bottle. Immediately on arrival they attacked him with knife. They caught hold of him and attacked him with lathi and knife. After throwing him on the road while giving abuses they left the spot. We were having dispute and fight with them over the house. Near our house, Haneef s/o Gafoor has built a house. Since then he and his sons do something in front of our house. They keep an evil eye on our sisters and daughters. Upon saying something they pick-up a fight. Due to this reason today these persons on public road had committed murder of my brother. Near our house, Haneef s/o Gafoor has built a house. Since then he and his sons do something in front of our house. They keep an evil eye on our sisters and daughters. Upon saying something they pick-up a fight. Due to this reason today these persons on public road had committed murder of my brother. At the time of occurrence, my brother was smoking cigarette and was having conversation with Abej Hussain Chishti @ Bhola s/o Tasadduk Hussain Chishti and Irfan Mohammad s/o Noor Mohammad. At the time of occurrence, I was returning from the house of my sister. When I reached at the spot, the assailants while giving abuses and threat to liquidate me, came towards me. Due to arrival of mob they ran away from the spot. I came near to my brother. While wreathing under pain, he disclosed the names of the accused. Then my neighbours brought an auto. In the said auto, I took my brother to JLN Hospital where the doctor had declared my brother dead. I am presenting this report. Legal action be taken. Sd/-" 5. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 29.7.2004 at 8.30-9.00 PM, written report (Ex.P.1) was submitted on the same date i.e. 29.7.2004 at 10.30. PM, case was registered at the same time, special report reached Ilaka Magistrate on the next date, i.e. 30.7.2004 at 2.05 PM in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer. It has come in the FIR that when Mohammad Sadiq reached hospital he was declared dead. 6. Dr. R.K. Mathur (P.W.12) was posted as Medical Jurist at JLN Hospital, Ajmer. Doctor in court deposed that on 29.7.2004 at 9.40 PM deceased Mohammad Sadiq was declared dead and on the next date i.e. on 30.7.2004 at 11.30 AM his post-mortem was conducted. In the post-mortem report (Ex.P.26), doctor had noted following nine injuries on the person of Mohammad Sadiq:- "1. Stitch wound on the forehead, 8 cm. 2. Stab wound 5x2 cm left side of chest, 8 cm from left nipple downward and medially in the mid line going upto the lower lobe of left lung, chest cavity containing about 11/2 ltr. blood. 3. Stab wound 4x2 cm left side of chest, 16 cm from left nipple going upto the lower lobe of left lung. 4. Stab wound left side of abdomen, 9 cm left to umblicus intestinal loops coming out. blood. 3. Stab wound 4x2 cm left side of chest, 16 cm from left nipple going upto the lower lobe of left lung. 4. Stab wound left side of abdomen, 9 cm left to umblicus intestinal loops coming out. Multiple perforation of large intestine. Abdominal cavity full of blood mixed with dural matter. 5. Stab wound right side of chest 3x2 cm x muscle deep 15 cm below right nipple, oblique, clean-cut margin. 6. Stab wound right side of abdomen in mid axillary line, 3x2 cm x going upto lower part of liver, abdominal cavity contain about 11/2 ltr. blood mixed with dural matter. 7. Stab wound right side abdomen 10 cm above and lateral to liver, 4x2 cm going upto lower part of liver. 8. Stab wound 3 x 2 cm below and lateral to injury No.7. 9. Stab wound 3 x 2 cm x 4 cm right to umblicus intestinal loops coming out." 7. As per opinion of the doctor, cause of death was shock as a result of ante-mortem injury to left lung and liver caused by sharp weapon. The doctor further opined that injuries No.2, 3, 6 and 7 individually or collectively were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 8. A perusal of the above injuries reveal that injury No.1 was stitch wound on forehead having dimension of 8 cm and rest of all injuries were stab wounds caused by one weapon. 9. Prosecution in the present case in all examined nineteen witnesses.Mohammad Arif (P.W.1), Ramesh Kumar (P.W.7), Irfan Mohammad (P.W.8) and Awej Hussain Chishti (P.W.10) were cited as eye-witnesses of the occurrence.Mohammad Aslam (P.W.3), Smt. Taj Bano (P.W.16) and Mohammad Haroon (P.W.17) were examined to prove oral dying declaration of Mohammad Sadiq deceased. 10. Before we take notice of the ocular evidence cited in the present case, we shall have a quick glance of the testimony of other prosecution witnesses.Sayyad Rab Nawaz (P.W.2) had attested inquest (Ex.P.6) and in his presence, clothes of the deceased vide memo (Ex.P.7) were taken into possession by the police.Mohammad Aslam (P.W.3) is another brother of the deceased. He has stated that on 29.7.2004 he was working at his shop. There he received information that the accused are causing injuries to his brother Mohammad Sadiq, he reached at the spot. There his brothers Arif and Irfan, Raees, Awej Hussain were standing. He has stated that on 29.7.2004 he was working at his shop. There he received information that the accused are causing injuries to his brother Mohammad Sadiq, he reached at the spot. There his brothers Arif and Irfan, Raees, Awej Hussain were standing. Mohammad Sadiq deceased was lying there in an injured condition, on inquiry, his brother Mohammad Sadiq informed that Vakeel, Abrar had caught hold of him and Mushtaq caused him injuries with a knife blow.Afaq Hussain (P.W.4) had attested inquest (Ex.P.6) as also site plan (Ex.P.3). He further stated that vide memo (Ex.P.16) dead body of Mohammad Sadiq was handed over for burial.ASI Girdhari Singh (P.W.5) stated that on 30.7.2004 in his presence accused Mushtaq was arrested vide Exhibit-P.17.Ramzan (P.W.6) stated that 2-21/2 years ago police lifted blood stained soil from the spot along with simple soil.Tasuk Hussain Chishti (P.W.9) had witnessed recovery of knife vide memo (Ex.P.20) from accused Mushtaq. He also witnessed recovery of jeans, shirt and vest made from the accused-appellant Mushtaq vide memo (Ex.P.21).Constable Pooran Singh (P.W.11) on 9.8.2004 had carried five sealed packets from Police Station to the Forensic Science Laboratory.Constable Shiv Charan (P.W.13) had witnessed arrest of accused Abrar Ahmad and Vakeel vide memos, Ex.P.27 and P.28 respectively.Kadir Ahmad (P.W.14) witnessed recovery of simple soil and blood stained soil vide memos, Ex.P.18 and P.19 respectively.Phool Singh (P.W.15) was in-charge of Malkhana. He proved deposit with him and onward dispatch of sealed packets to the Forensic Science Laboratory. This witness alongwith Constable Pooran Singh (P.W.11) was examined to prove link evidence.Mohammad Raees Khan (P.W.18) deposed in court that on 29.7.2004 at about 8.30-9.00 PM he was in his house taking his meals when on hearing noise he came out of his house and saw the accused running in the street. 11. Now we shall notice the evidence of the witnesses before whom deceased had made oral dying declaration. 12. We have already noted testimony of MohammadAslam (P.W.3) brother of the deceased. In court this witness stated that his brother Mohammad Sadiq was lying on the spot. He made inquiries from him regarding the occurrence and he informed that Vakeel and Abrar had caught hold of him and Mushtaq caused injuries on various parts of his body abdomen and chest. We have already noted testimony of MohammadAslam (P.W.3) brother of the deceased. In court this witness stated that his brother Mohammad Sadiq was lying on the spot. He made inquiries from him regarding the occurrence and he informed that Vakeel and Abrar had caught hold of him and Mushtaq caused injuries on various parts of his body abdomen and chest. The exact words stated by the witness are as under:- " vkSj esjk HkkbZ eksgEen lknhd ?kk;y voLFkk esa ogka iM+k gqvk FkkA eSaus mlls iwNk fd D;k gqvk HkkbZ rks mlus crk;k fd vdhy] vcjkj] bUgksaus eq>s idM+k] eq'rkd us pkdqvksa ls esjs 'kjhj ij okj fd;s vkSj isV] lhus o 'kjhj ij okj fd;sA eSaus ns[kk mlds vka[k ds mij flj ij [kwu cg jgk FkkA " 13. Mohammad Harun (P.W.17) is auto driver. This witness stated that in his auto he carried deceased Mohammad Sadiq to the hospital and Sadiq had told him that Mushtaq had caused him injuries. To be precise, witness stated, " vk+Vks esa lkfnd cksy jgk Fkk fd eq'rhd us ekjk " 14. Smt. Taj Bano (P.W.16) is widow of the deceased. She stated in court that on hearing that his husband has been caused injuries, she ran to the place of occurrence and took head of his husband in her lap and her husband informed that all accused had caused him injuries with knife, iron rod, etc. This witness in cross-examination was duly confronted with her statement (Ex.D.4) wherein material facts were not recorded. The witness admitted that she cannot state the reason as to why police had not recorded in statement that only Saeed, Wahid were armed with knife. She further admitted that she has not stated in her statement (Ex.D.4) that Vakeel and Abrar had caught hold of Sadiq. To be precise, the witness stated as under:- " eSaus iqfyl dks lbZn oghn ds gkFk esa pkdw gksus dh ckr crk;h Fkh] iqfyl us iqfyl c;ku Mh&4 esa D;ksa ugha fy[kk eSa ugha crk ldrh] vt[kqn dgk esjs ls rks iwNrkN dh Fkh] esjs lkeus dqN ugha fy[kk FkkA eSaus iqfyl dks odhy vkSj vcjkj }kjk lkfnd dks ihNs ls idM+us dh ckr crk;h Fkh] Mh&4 c;kuksa esa oghn vkSj odhy }kjk idM+uk dSls fy[kk gS eSa ugha crk ldrhA " 15. Thus, it is apparent that as per oral dying declaration made by the deceased to auto driver Mohammad Harun (P.W.17), injuries were caused by Mushtaq whereas brother of the deceased Mohammad Aslam (P.W.3) stated that his brother before his death had told him that Vakeel and Abrar had caught hold of him and Mushtaq caused injuries. Taj Bano (P.W.16) has materially changed her statement and was duly confronted with her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating agency. 16. Now, we shall revert to the testimony of eyewitnesses. 17. Mohammad Arif (P.W.1) brother of the deceased in court stated that Mushtaq caused a knife blow in abdomen of his brother. Haneef caused injury with a bottle on head. Abrar and Vakeel had caught hold of hands of his brother and others caused injuries to his brother with iron rod, bottle and knife. The witness further stated that when his Bhabhi wife of the deceased came, his brother before death had told his wife that Mushtaq had caused injuries with knife. Saeed, Wahid, Ikrar and Vakeel had caught hold of him and Haneef caused injury on the head. Latif, Wahid Saeed and others had also caused injuries. However, this witness in cross-examination admitted that the occurrence had taken place for five minutes and before he reached at the spot to intervene, the occurrence had finished and accused had already left the spot. He had seen nine injuries on the person of Sadiq. The witness was confronted with the written report (Ex.P.1) submitted by him. 18. Irfan Mohammad (P.W.8) in court stated that Haneef caused injuries on the head of deceased with a bottle. Vakeel and Abrar had caught hold of Sadiq. Mushtaq was armed with knife, Wahid, Saeed, Aqeel were also armed with knives. Latif was armed with Danda and Wasim was armed with iron rod. On immediately coming, all the accused started causing injuries to the deceased. 19. Awej Hussain Chishti (P.W.10) in court stated that Abrar and Vakeel had caught hold of Mohammad Sadiq. Mushtaq, Saeed, Aqeel and Wahid armed with knife had caused indiscriminate knife blows.We have heard Shri Anshuman Saxena, counsel for Mustaq, Shri Prithvi Raj Singh for appellant Vakeel Ahmad, Shri Neeraj Tiwari counsel for appellant Abrar, Ms. Meenakshi Pareek learned Public Prosecutor, Shri N.A. Naqvi Senior Advocate counsel for the complainant and Shri Reashm Bhargava counsel for acquitted accused. 20. Mushtaq, Saeed, Aqeel and Wahid armed with knife had caused indiscriminate knife blows.We have heard Shri Anshuman Saxena, counsel for Mustaq, Shri Prithvi Raj Singh for appellant Vakeel Ahmad, Shri Neeraj Tiwari counsel for appellant Abrar, Ms. Meenakshi Pareek learned Public Prosecutor, Shri N.A. Naqvi Senior Advocate counsel for the complainant and Shri Reashm Bhargava counsel for acquitted accused. 20. The learned trial Judge to record acquittal of Mahammad Haneef and his three sons Abdul Wahid, Saeed and Aqeel held as under:- ih0M0&8 bjQku ,oa ih0M0&10 gqlSu us vfHk;qDr guhQ }kjk ( e'rd ) ds flj esa cksry dh ekjuk ,oa vfHk;qDr oghn] lbZn o vdhy }kjk mls pkdw ls pksVsa igqapk;k tkuk Hkh crk;k gSA ysfdu mDr rF; dk mYys[k mDr lk{khx.k ds iqfyl c;ku dze'k% izn'kZ Mh&2 ,oa izn'kZ Mh&3 esa ugha vk;k gSA vFkkZr mDr lk{khx.k] lkfnd e'rd ds lkFk vfHk;qDr guhQ }kjk cksry rFkk vfHk;qDr oghn] lbZn o vdhy }kjk pkdw ls ekjihV fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa vius&vius iqfyl c;kuksa esa egRoiw.kZ lq/kkj djrs gq;s] l'kiFk c;kuksa esa c<+k&p<+kdj dFku djrs gSaA vr% lkfnd e'rd ds lkFk guhQ }kjk cksry rFkk vfHk;qDr oghn] lbZn o vdhy }kjk pkdw ls ekjihV fd;s tkus ckcr~ mDr nksuksa lk{khx.k ds dFku fo'oluh; izrhr ugha gksrs gSaA mDr nksuksa lk{kh vius iqfyl c;ku dze'k% izn'kZ Mh&2 o izn'kZ Mh&3 esa vfHk;qDr eq'rkd }kjk pkdw ls lkfnd ds isV o lhus ij pksVsa igqapk;s tkus ds i'pkr guhQ] oghn] lbZn o vdhy }kjk lkfnd e'rd ds lkFk ykr&?kwlksa ,oa ydfM+;ksa ls ekjihV fd;k tkuk crk;k gSA ysfdu lkfnd dh iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih&26 ds vuqlkj e'rd ds 'kjhj ij dqan gfFk;kj dh dksbZ pksVsa ugha ikbZ xbZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk e'rd ds lkFk ykr&?kwlksa ,oa ydfM+;ksa ls ekjihV fd;s tkus dk rF; fo'oluh; ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA ih0M0&1&eksgEen vkfjQ] ih0M0&16&Jherh rkt ckuksa ,oa ih0M0&18&eksgEen jbZl ?kVuk ds izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh ugha gSA mDr rhuksa lk{khx.k us ?kVukLFky ij lkfnd dks ygqyqgku fLFkfr esa ik;k gS fQj mDr lk{khx.k vkWVks esa Mkydj lkfnd dks vLirky ysdj igqaps gSaA fpfdRlky; esa lkfnd dks e'r ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus dk dFku Hkh mDr lk{kh vius c;ku djrs gSaA eksgEen gk:u vkWVks pkyd gS] ftlus vius vkWVks esa Mkydj lkfnd dks vLirky igqapk;k gSA bl izdkj mDr lk{khx.k ds c;kuksa ls lkfnd ds ?kVukLFky ij ygqyqgku ik;s tkus ,oa mls vkWVks esa Mkydj vLirky ys tkus ds rF; dh iqf"V gksrh gSA ih0M0&16&Jherh rkt ckuksa us vius c;kuksa esa ;g Hkh crk;k gS fd vkWVks esa ysdj tkrs le; lkfnd us mls lbZn] oghn o ,d vU; O;fDr ds gkFk esa pkdw gksus rFkk guhQ }kjk mlds flj ij cksry ls ekjus dh ckr crk;h FkhA ysfdu mDr rF; dk mYys[k bl lk{kh ds iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ Mh&4 esa ugha vk;k gSA vfHk;qDr guhQ }kjk e'rd ds flj esa cksry dh ekjus rFkk lbZn] oghn o ,d vU; O;fDr ds gkFk esa pkdw gksus dh ckr e'rd lkfnd }kjk Jherh rkt ckuksa dks crk;s tkus dk rF; ih0M0&16&Jherh rkt ckuksa us vius l'kiFk c;ku esa iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ Mh&4 ls egRoiw.kZ lq/kkj djrs gq;s c<+k&p<+kdj crk;k gSA vr% ih0M0&16&Jherh rkt ckuksa dk mDr dFku fo'oluh; izrhr ugha gksrk gSA uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ ih&3] vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ih0M0&19 enunku flag us ih0M0&4 vkQkd gqlSu dh ekStwnxh esa rS;kj fd;k gSA uD'kk ekSdk ds vuqlkj ekjihV dh ?kVuk >jus'oj jksM ij jes'k fla/kh dh nqdku ds ikl vke jkLrs esa ?kfVr gksuk crk;k x;k gSA ih0M0&7&jes'k us vius l'kiFk c;kuksa esa ?kVuk ds dqN igys ( e'rd ) lkfnd o eq'rkd dk viuh nqdku ij vkuk] mlds rRdky i'pkr >xM+s dh vkokt lquuk ,oa lkfnd ds ?kVuk LFky ij ?kk;ykoLFkk esa iM+s gksus ds rF;ksa dh iqf"V dh gSA 21. Ramesh Kumar (P.W.7) in front of whose shop the occurrence had taken place, even though has turned hostile to the prosecution, in court stated that Sadiq was standing at his shop and Mushtaq after taking a pouch of milk had left the spot. Thereafter what had happened the witness stated that he is not aware, but he heard that fight was taking place. Thus, Ramesh Kumar (P.W.7) an independent person only acknowledged presence of Mohammad Sadiq and Mushtaq at the spot. 22. Taking testimony of Ramesh Kumar (P.W.7), Mohammad Harun (P.W.17) auto driver and Mohammad Aslam (P.W.3) brother of the deceased, we can safely say that the injuries were caused by Mushtaq only who was armed with a knife. Out of nine injuries suffered by the deceased, eight injuries are stab wound and other injury is also an incised injury thus, all injuries can be caused by a knife. Giving due credence to the well reasoned findings given by the trial court, we are of the view that the witnesses, indeed, have exaggerated the occurrence by implicating Mohammad Haneef and his three acquitted sons Abdul Wahid, Saeed and Aqeel and fourth convicted son Vakeel Ahmed who had allegedly caught hold of deceased Mohammad Sadiq. There was motive for the witnesses to introduce Mohammad Haneef and his four sons as regarding house there was continuous dispute with the family of Mohammad Haneef and to this effect averment is discernible in the FIR. Moreover, in the FIR it has been nowhere stated that Abrar brother of Mushtaq and Vakeel Ahmad had caught hold of the deceased. 23. FIR was registered at Police Station Dargah on 29.7.2004 at 10.30 PM. Special report had not reached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer on the same night. Even though the house of the Magistrate and his court are situated in the nearby vicinity, the special report reached Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer on the next day on 30.7.2004 at 2.05 PM. Delay in reaching of the special report to the ilaka magistrate lead to only inference that after consultations and deliberations number of accused were inflated. It is a case of over implication. 24. In Bijoy Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar, 2002 (9) SCC 147 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "6. Delay in reaching of the special report to the ilaka magistrate lead to only inference that after consultations and deliberations number of accused were inflated. It is a case of over implication. 24. In Bijoy Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar, 2002 (9) SCC 147 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "6. This Court in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. held that FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case, is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if known to the informant. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. 7. Sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate as required under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the only external check on the working of the police agency, imposed by law which is required to be strictly followed. The delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful but shall put the court on guard to find out as to whether the version as stated in the court was the same version as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of deliberations involving some other persons who were actually not involved in the commission of the crime. (Emphasis supplied). Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157 CrPC is the mandate of law. Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. (Emphasis supplied). It is always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it. Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. (Emphasis supplied). It is always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it. 8. In the instant case, the copy of the report referred to in Section 157 CrPC is shown to have been received by the Magistrate on 27-8-1991. Even though there is a mention in the FIR that its copy was sent through special messenger, yet no date or time of sending the said report is mentioned. The Magistrate, receiving the copy of the report, has also not noted the time of its receipt on 27-8-1991. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate receiving reports under Section 157 CrPC, particularly when it relates to the commission of the heinous crime are required to note not only the date but also the time of the receipt of the copy thereof. Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State has pointed out the existence of various circumstances which may perhaps be the cause of delay in sending the copy of the report and its receipt by the Magistrate but surely there is a difference between the "may be"and "must be". The prosecution has apparently failed to explain the delay in sending the copy of the said report in terms of Section 157 CrPC to the Magistrate of the area. This aspect has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that many of the accused were innocent and wrongly roped in the case allegedly on account of enmity existing between the complainant and the accused party. There is some substance in such a submission." 25. Taking the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bijoy Singh (supra) and reasons stated by us above, we can safely say that all injuries in the occurrence were caused by accused-appellant Mushtaq alone and subsequently, Abrar and Vakeel Ahmad were introduced as accused who allegedly had caught hold of the deceased. Except that Abrar and Vakeel Ahmad had caught hold of the deceased, no overt act has been assigned to them. The fact that accused appellants Abrar and Vakeel Ahmad had caught hold of the hands of the deceased, has not been stated in the FIR. 26. Except that Abrar and Vakeel Ahmad had caught hold of the deceased, no overt act has been assigned to them. The fact that accused appellants Abrar and Vakeel Ahmad had caught hold of the hands of the deceased, has not been stated in the FIR. 26. It is to be noted that in the arrest memo of Mushtaq (Ex.P.17), injuries have been noted on his person. The injuries on the person of Mushtaq make his presence stamped at the place of occurrence. However, noticing the injuries on the person of Mushtaq, we reject the argument raised by Shri Anshuman Saxena, learned counsel for Mushtaq, that he is entitled for acquittal for non-explanation of injuries on his person. Injuries on the person of Mushtaq were superficial in nature. Therefore, there was no need for the prosecution to explain the same. 27. Taking totality of the circumstances that the injuries were caused by one weapon, furthermore Mohammad Harun (P.W.17) auto driver, Mohammad Aslam (P.W.3) brother of the deceased have only named Mushtaq as the one who had caused injuries with knife, we find involvement of other accused except Mushtaq doubtful. Ramesh Kumar (P.W.7) in front of whose shop the occurrence had taken place also deposed regarding presence of accused Mushtaq and deceased Mohammad Sadiq at his shop, thus we are of the view that it is not safe to uphold the conviction of accused Abrar and Vakeel Ahmad. We also hold that the findings returned by the trial court and reproduced by us above, suffer from no infirmity and are possible on the facts of the case. Since the view formulated by the trial Judge is the one view and same is not perverse, we also find no merit in the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan. 28. Consequently, as a result of above discussion, we extend the benefit of doubt as a matter of abundant caution to Vakeel Ahmad and Abrar, accused- appellants. Hence, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.698/2008 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1111/2008 preferred by Vakeel Ahmad and Abrar respectively are allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded upon them by the trial court is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 29. We find no merit in the appeal preferred by Mushtaq. Hence, D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No.993/2008 is dismissed. 30. 29. We find no merit in the appeal preferred by Mushtaq. Hence, D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No.993/2008 is dismissed. 30. As already held by us, no interference is warranted in the findings returned by the trial court whereby Mohammad Haneef, Abdul Wahid, Saeed and Aqeel were acquitted. Hence, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1169/2008, State of Rajasthan v. Mushtaq & Ors. is dismissed along with D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1235/2008 preferred by the complainant Mohammad Arif.Appeal Nos. 698/2008 and 1111/2008 allowed and Appeal Nos. 993/2008, 1169/2008 and 1235/2008 dismissed. *******