JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants, Kanha and his two sons, namely, Jagdish and Raju, aged 32 years and 20 years, respectively, were sent for trial having committing the murder of Lala on 20.1.2007, at about 4:30 AM in the morning, in the fields of Lala. They have been further tried for causing injuries to Amar Lal (P.W.1), son of Lala. The trial court vide impugned judgment dated 17.4.2008, held all the three accused-appellants guilty for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 325/34 IPC. 2. The trial court having convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences, vide a separate order of even date sentenced them as under: U/s 302/34 IPC- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months additional imprisonment. U/s 325/34 IPC- to undergo two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month additional imprisonment. 3. The criminal proceedings, in the present case were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/1) presented by Amar Lal (P.W.1) before Mota Ram (P.W.12), who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Kunhadi. 4. In nut shell, Amar Lal (P.W.1) in the written report (Exhibit-P/1) stated that on the intervening night of 19th and 20th January, 2007, he along with his father Lala ji and one Kamal (P.W.2) son of his uncle, Ram Lal, had gone to fields to guard the wheat crop. The accused, Jagdish and Raju were also guarding their crop in the adjoining agriculture field. The complainant, Amar Lal (P.W.1) was sleeping over the scaffold (Machan) made for observation and his father, Lala was sleeping on the ground. Kamal was sleeping at some distance. On 20.1.2007, at 4:30 AM in the morning he woke up from sleep hearing shrieks of his father and saw that Kanha, Jagdish and Raju were causing injuries to his father. Kanha was armed with axe, Raju was armed with sword and Jagdish was armed with lathi. The complainant, Amar Lal (P.W.1) alighted from the scaffold (Machan) to save his father. Immediately, when Amar Lal alighted from the scaffold, Kanha gave an axe blow on his head. Amar Lal ran to save his life and raised shrieks. Kamal also woke up. He also witnessed the occurrence. The accused were giving beating to his father. The complainant, Amar Lal (P.W.1) alighted from the scaffold (Machan) to save his father. Immediately, when Amar Lal alighted from the scaffold, Kanha gave an axe blow on his head. Amar Lal ran to save his life and raised shrieks. Kamal also woke up. He also witnessed the occurrence. The accused were giving beating to his father. Amar Lal came running from the fields to the village and informed Hansraj and Dayaram sons of maternal uncle, about the occurrence. Thereafter, all the three came to the field and took care of his father, Lala. Lot of blood had oozed out of the head of Lala, due to which, Lala died at the spot. He was brought to the hospital at Kota. Amar Lal (P.W.1) had also suffered injuries on the back of his head. Due to removal of the stones, a dispute had arisen with the accused and the accused were keeping the same as grudge, therefore, had given beating. 5. On the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/1), a formal FIR (Exhibit-P/2) bearing No. 18/07 was registered at Police Station, Kunhadi, District Kota for the offences under Sections 302, 323, 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 6. As is evident, the occurrence had taken place on 20.1.2007 at 4:30 AM. Amar Lal (P.W.1) presented the written report (Exhibit-P/1) before Mota Ram (P.W.12) SHO, Police Station Kunhadi, at MBBS Hospital, Kota. The case was registered on 20.1.2007 at 8:15 AM and the special report reached Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Kota, on 20.1.2007 at 2:55 PM. The investigating agency, after thorough investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-appellants. The report of investigation along with the accused was committed to the court of Sessions and was entrusted for trial to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Kota. The appellants were substantively charged for the offence under Section 323 in alternate for offence under Section 323/34 IPC and substantively for the offence under Section 307, in alternate for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC. Similarly, they were substantively charged for the offence under Section 302 and in alternate for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. 7. In the present case, the prosecution, in all examined 12 witnesses and proved thirty documents on record from Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/30. Amar Lal (P.W.1) and Raj Kamal (P.W.2) are two eyewitness of the occurrence. 8. Similarly, they were substantively charged for the offence under Section 302 and in alternate for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. 7. In the present case, the prosecution, in all examined 12 witnesses and proved thirty documents on record from Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/30. Amar Lal (P.W.1) and Raj Kamal (P.W.2) are two eyewitness of the occurrence. 8. Before adverting to the statements made by the eyewitnesses, it will be necessary for us to take note of medical evidence. 9. Dr. Arun Sharma (P.W.6) on 20.1.2007 at 9:20 AM, had examined Amar Lal (P.W.1) and as per injury report (Exhibit-P/12), he had found the following two injuries on his person:- "(i) Lacerated wound, 4 x 2cm (bone), on left occipital region, blunt. (ii) Abrasion, 4 x 1cm, right forearm, middle 3rd, simple, blunt." Injury No.1, being fracture of occipital bone, was declared as grievous and injury No.2 was found simple. Both the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. 10. Dr. Rakesh Sharma (P.W.11) on 20.1.2007, conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Lala at MBBS Hospital, Kota and as per Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/16), he had found following external injuries:- 5. Injuries natural exact position and measurements including direction especially in incised wounds- (A) Ante-mortem injuries: (i) Lacerated wound, 4 x 1cm, bone deep on the left zygomatic region extended to left maxillary region. (ii) Lacerated wound, 5 x 1cm, bone deep, on the left parietal region anteriorly. (iii) Lacerated wound, 2 x 1cm, bone deep, left parietal region, muscle deep anteriorly. (iv) Lacerated wound, 21/2 x 1cm, bone deep, on left parietal region, posteriorly. (v) Lacerated wound, 6 x 11/2 cm, bone deep, on the occipital region and left side extending to the temporal region. (B) Post Mortem injury- Rush injury to left foot. (vi) Bone injury- fracture of left zygomatic on maxilla bone." 11. On opening of skull, doctor had found sub-scalp haematoma on the back of left side of head. He had also found fracture of occipital bone and fracture of left temporal bone. In the brain, beneath the occipital bone, left temporal region haematoma was also found. Brain and membranes were congested. Right and left lung were also congested. As per opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to Coma as a result of ante mortem head injury. 12. In cross-examination, Dr. In the brain, beneath the occipital bone, left temporal region haematoma was also found. Brain and membranes were congested. Right and left lung were also congested. As per opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to Coma as a result of ante mortem head injury. 12. In cross-examination, Dr. Rakesh Sharma (P.W.11) stated that all injuries suffered by the deceased, Lala were caused by blunt weapon. 13. Amar Lal (P.W.1) being injured eyewitness stated in the court that they are three brothers, namely Gobrilal, Hansraj and Amar Lal. His father and brothers were residing jointly in the village Shambhupura. His elder brother is engaged in dairy business. He along with his father and other members of the family were engaged in agriculture. They are having agricultural field in village Shambhupura. His father, Lala had died seven to eight months ago in the field. His father was murdered in the night of 19th January, 2007. He along with his father and Raj Kamal (P.W.2) son of uncle, at 6:00 PM, had gone to field for guarding the wheat crop. At around 12:00 AM or 1:00 AM, in the night, he had gone to sleep over the scaffold (Machan). His father was sleeping below the scaffold. Raj Kamal (P.W.2) was also sleeping nearby. Suddenly, at 4:30 AM, in the morning, they heard cries and shrieks of his father, Lala. Raju, Jagdish and Kanha armed with sword, axe and lathi were causing injuries. All the three accused had trespassed into their field. They caused injuries to his father on the head and feet with axe, lathi and sword. Having heard the shrieks of his father, when he alighted from the scaffold, Kanha caused injury with axe on his head and blood started oozing out of the injury. After receipt of injury, he ran towards the village. At that time, the accused were at the spot. This witness narrated the occurrence to his cousin, Dayaram (P.W.3), son of his maternal uncle. They returned on the motorcycle. When they came back, the accused were not present. Raj Kamal (P.W.2) was taking care of his father. This witness stated that on 19.1.2007, a dispute had arisen between his father and the accused, Kanha over cleaving of stones on the shyamlati land. 14. In cross-examination, this witness stated that the first blow was given by Jagdish and Kanha to his father. Raj Kamal (P.W.2) was taking care of his father. This witness stated that on 19.1.2007, a dispute had arisen between his father and the accused, Kanha over cleaving of stones on the shyamlati land. 14. In cross-examination, this witness stated that the first blow was given by Jagdish and Kanha to his father. Kanha was armed with axe. 15. Raj Kamal (P.W.2) also reiterated the same as to what was stated by Amar Lal (P.W.1). 16. Dayaram (P.W.3) in the court stated that the deceased, Lala was his uncle (Fufa) being husband of sister of his father. On the intervening night of 19th and 20th January, 2007, Lala was murdered by Kanha, Jagdish and Raju. Amar Lal (P.W.1) had come in the morning to his house at 5:15 AM and had narrated the occurrence. Amar Lal had informed him that Kanha, Jagdish and Raju had caused injuries to Lala with axe, sword and lathi. This witness along with Hansraj and Amar Lal (P.W.1) had gone to the field on motorcycle, where Raj Kamal was present and Lala was lying on the spot. The blood was oozing out of his injuries. Lala had died at the spot. 17. To similar effect, is the statement of Hansraj (P.W.5), brother of Amar Lal (P.W.1). 18. Gobri Lal (P.W.8), is another brother, who has also stated that Amar Lal (P.W.1) had narrated the occurrence at MBBS Hospital, Kota. This witness had attested various memos regarding the recoveries effected by the police from the spot. This witness had stated that he was staying in Nanta and his father and brothers were staying at village Shambhupura. 19. Iqraam (P.W.4), being Photographer, was called at the spot and he had taken photographs of the place of occurrence. 20. Heera Lal (P.W.7) in the court stated that on 20.1.2007, he was was posted as ASI, at Police Station Kunhadi. He had gone to the MBBS Hospital, Kota at 8:30 AM. At that time, the dead body of Lala was lying in the post mortem room. He had carried inquest proceedings and also got the spot photographed from Iqraam (P.W.4). 21. Bachchu Singh (P.W.9), who was posted as Constable at the relevant time, stated in the court that he had carried sealed packets from the police station Kunhadi to FSL Jaipur. Satya Narayan (P.W.10) was In-charge of Malkhana. He had carried inquest proceedings and also got the spot photographed from Iqraam (P.W.4). 21. Bachchu Singh (P.W.9), who was posted as Constable at the relevant time, stated in the court that he had carried sealed packets from the police station Kunhadi to FSL Jaipur. Satya Narayan (P.W.10) was In-charge of Malkhana. Bachchu Singh (P.W.9) and Satya Narayan were examined by the prosecution to prove link evidence. 22. Mota Ram (P.W.12) being Investigating Officer has proved various facets of investigation. 23. The statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating evidence was put to them. They denied the same and pleaded false implications. In defence, accused examined two witnesses, namely Chhitar Lal (D.W.1) and Ram Kumar Gurjar (D.W.2). 24. Chhitar Lal (D.W.1) stated that he is married to the daughter of accused Kanha. This witness was residing at Nanta. On 19.1.2007, there was a Jagaran at his house and accused had come to his village to attend the same. Ram Kumar Gurjar (D.W.2) was also examined to prove alibi of the accused-appellants. 25. Mr. P.S. Sirohi, the learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that it is case of blind murder. Nobody had witnesses the occurrence. Regarding the injury suffered by Amar Lal (P.W.1), which is fracture of occipital bone, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that Amar Lal (P.W.1) has specifically stated in the court that somebody caused injury on the back of his head, and therefore, the witnesses could not identify the assailants. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that we should not lose sight of the fact that occurrence had taken place on 20.1.2007, which was the day of extreme winter and due to fog and darkness, nobody would be able to identify the assailants. 26. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that axe and sword are incised weapons and all the injuries on the person of the deceased, Lala and injured Amar Lal (P.W.1) have been caused with the blunt weapons. Thus, the medical evidence belie the ocular version. 27. Mr. N.S. Dhakad, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that due to the injury received, which was very serious being fracture of occipital bone, the presence of Amar Lal (P.W.1) at the spot is stamped. Thus, the medical evidence belie the ocular version. 27. Mr. N.S. Dhakad, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that due to the injury received, which was very serious being fracture of occipital bone, the presence of Amar Lal (P.W.1) at the spot is stamped. Furthermore, since the accused are residents of the village and are having adjoining fields, the witnesses would be able to identify the accused, even though it was dark. 28. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find merit in the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor. 29. Accused and the witnesses are co-villagers. Their fields are adjoin each others' field. Due to day to day agricultural activities, the witnesses will know the accused from voice, gait and physical appearance. It has come in the evidence that Amar Lal (P.W.1) was sleeping with his father in the fields. He was sleeping over the scaffold (Machan), whereas Lala was sleeping beneath the scaffold. Due to the injuries caused, shriek was raised by Lala and Amar Lal (P.W.1) alighted from the scaffold (Machan) to save his father, Lala. Amar Lal (P.W.1) was caused injury on the head, which is a fracture of occipital bone. The fracture of occipital bone, cannot be self-suffered injury. Therefore, the presence of Amar Lal (P.W.1) at the spot cannot be denied. Therefore, being co-villager, he will be able to identify the accused from their voice, gait and physical appearance. Thus, we are of the view that implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of Amar Lal (P.W.1), who was injured in the occurrence. 30. In the present case, the special report had reached the Illaqa Magistrate on the next day of the occurrence at 2:55 PM. There is a delay in reaching of the special report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijoy Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar, 2002 (9) SCC 147 , 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. v. State of Bihar, 2002 (9) SCC 147 , 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. Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157 Cr PC 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. 8. In the instant case, the copy of the report referred to in Section 157 Cr PC is shown to have been received by the Magistrate on 27-8-1991. (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 Cr PC 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 Cr PC, 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 Cr PC 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." 31. A peculiar feature of the case is that six injuries on the person of the deceased, Lala and two injuries on the person of Amar Lal (P.W.1) have been caused with a blunt weapon. The accused-appellant, Jagdish, as per the witnesses was armed with lathi and accused-appellant, Kanha was armed with an axe. The axe can be used from the reverse side. The sword had been attributed to the accused-appellant, Raju. If any injury is caused by sword, it is bound to cause incised injury, but no incise injury has been found in the occurrence. Thus, we are of the view that delay in reaching the special report call upon us to be circumspect and sift the grain from the chaff. The sword had been attributed to the accused-appellant, Raju. If any injury is caused by sword, it is bound to cause incised injury, but no incise injury has been found in the occurrence. Thus, we are of the view that delay in reaching the special report call upon us to be circumspect and sift the grain from the chaff. Since no incised injury has been found, which can only be caused with sword, we are of the view that benefit of doubt can be extended to the appellant Raju. 32. Consequently, holding that all the blunt injuries can be caused with lathi and reverse side of axe, we uphold the conviction of Jagdish and Kanha and extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant, Raju on the account that no injury has been found from the weapon with him. Even otherwise, there is a tendency to over implicate and involve all members of the family. Therefore, as a matter of abundant caution, we extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant Raju. 33. The appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant, Raju is accepted. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court qua Raju, is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges. Whereas, by affirming the conviction and sentence of Jagdish and Kanha, we dismiss the appeal preferred by them. 34. In view of the acceptance of the appeal qua Raju, we order that the appellant Raju, be released forthwith, if in custody and not required in any other case. 35. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant, Raju is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court.Appeal No. 762/2008 dismissed. *******