JUDGMENT 1. - On 19.4.1997 at around 1.00 AM in the jungle near Village Jurhera, Umar Mohammad son of Ismail was murdered. Jaan Mohammad (P.W.2) had submitted written report (Ex.P.2) before Rajendra Singh (P.W.6) who was then posted as SHO, P.S. Jurhera. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P.2), a formal FIR (Ex.P.5) bearing FIR No.54/97 was registered at Police Station Jurhera, District Bharatpur. 2. Jaan Mohammad (P.W.2) in written report (Ex.P.2) had named five persons namely Rahman Bux and his four sons namely Nauman, Salman, Usman and Arsad as accused. During pendency of the trial, Usman died and the proceedings were dropped against him. Trial court vide impugned judgment dated 17.8.2004 held all the four accused namely Nauman, Salman, Arsad and Rahman Bux guilty of offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149 and 323 IPC. Salman was also substantively convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC, whereas Nauman, Arsad and Rahman were convicted for offence under Section 324 r.w. Section 149 IPC. Nauman and Salman were also convicted for offence under Section 364 IPC. Accused Rahman Bux and Arsad were acquitted for offence under Section 364 r.w. Section 149 IPC. Having convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences, the trial court vide a separate judgment of even date sentenced them as under:- Accused, Nauman: "U/s.148 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.302/149 IPC: Sentenced to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.324/149 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.325/149 IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.364 IPC: Sentenced to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.323 IPC: One year rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. Accused, Salman: "U/s.148 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.302/149 IPC: Sentenced to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. U/s.323 IPC: One year rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. Accused, Salman: "U/s.148 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.302/149 IPC: Sentenced to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.324 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.325/149 IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.364 IPC: Sentenced to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.323 IPC: One year rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. Accused, Arsad: "U/s.148 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.302/149 IPC: Sentenced to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.324/149 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.325/149 IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s.323 IPC: One year rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment." 3. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the accused Nauman, Salman and Arsad have filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.959/2004, whereas Rahman Bux had instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1778/2007. During pendency of appeal, Rahman Bux had died and vide order dated 25.2.2015 a Division Bench of this court of which one of us (K.S. Ahluwalia, J.) was also Member, after inquiry, had disposed of the appeal as having abated. 4. As stated by us earlier, criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis a written report (Ex.P.2) submitted by Jaan Mohammad (P.W.2). 4. As stated by us earlier, criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis a written report (Ex.P.2) submitted by Jaan Mohammad (P.W.2). The complainant in written report submitted that on the night of 19.4.1997 all the five accused namely, Rahman Bux, Nauman, Usman, Salman and Arsad came and had taken away Umar Mohammad on the pretext of some work. On the way, Ali Mohammad son of Suleman met them and Ali Mohammad came to the house of the complainant and informed that the accused are taking Umar Mohammad towards the jungle. Jaan Mohammad (P.W.2) followed accused and Umar Mohammad in the jungle and saw that all the four accused were causing injuries to Umar Mohammad with Farsi and Lathi. When the complainant party made an attempt to intervene and save Umar Mohammad, injuries were also caused to Ali Mohammad (P.W.1) and Yunus, not examined. Thereafter, accused left the spot. Complainant party due to non-availability of conveyance could not bring Umar Mohammad to the hospital at the earliest. In the morning at 5.00 AM they started for Jurhera and Umar Mohammad died in the way. 5. As stated earlier, on the basis of written report (Ex.P.2), formal FIR (Ex.P.5) was registered. Thereafter, accused with the charge-sheet were committed to the court of sessions and then, trial was entrusted to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kaman. 6. The appellants were charged for various offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution commenced its evidence and examined nine witnesses and had proved on record twenty documents being Exhibits-P.1 to P.20. Thereafter, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. Accused had examined Salman as D.W.1 and also got exhibited ten documents, Exhibits-D.1 to D.10. 7. During pendency of the appeal, an application was filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for placing on record the judgment (Ex.D.11) rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kaman whereby Mubin brother of deceased, was convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC for committing rape upon Rehana sister of the appellants. Alongwith Mubin, Ali Mohammad and Yunus were also tried. During pendency of the appeal, an application was filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for placing on record the judgment (Ex.D.11) rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kaman whereby Mubin brother of deceased, was convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC for committing rape upon Rehana sister of the appellants. Alongwith Mubin, Ali Mohammad and Yunus were also tried. Yunus was acquitted, but Mubin and Ali Mohammad (P.W.1) were convicted for offence under Section 323 IPC and were sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and Mubin was convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. 8. A lot has been said before us by both the sides regarding the judgment (Ex.D.11). According to the learned Public Prosecutor, since Mubin brother of deceased Umar Mohammad had committed rape upon Rehana, sister of the three appellants, they had a motive to cause murder of Umar Mohammad, brother of Mubin. 9. To demolish the contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor, Shri D.G. Chaturvedi appearing for accused Nauman and Shri Azad Ahmad appearing for accused Salman and Arsad have contended that since Mubin, brother of deceased Umar Mohammad, had allegedly raped Rehana, for blind murder of Umar Mohammad, appellants have been falsely implicated as accused. It is contended that Umar Mohammad was murdered in the jungle. Nobody had seen the occurrence. In the morning his dead body was found. Since the appellants had lodged an FIR regarding the rape committed on Rehana by Mubin, brother of the deceased, as a counter-blast to above case complainant party has been falsely implicated the present appellants. 10. The prosecution in the present case has examined Ali Mohammad (P.W.1), Jaan Mohammad (P.W.2) and Rujddin (P.W.3) as eye-witnesses. All the three eye-witnesses have stated in categorical terms that the present appellants alongwith Usman and Rehman Bux had taken Umar Mohammad to the jungle and there they caused injuries to Umar Mohammed deceased with farsi and lathi. 11. Ali Mohammad (P.W.1) has stated that he was working as a conductor on the bus. Six years ago on the Eid night at 10-11 PM, he was returning to his village when he saw that accused were taking Umar Mohammad deceased towards the jungle. When he questioned them, they had given abuses to Ali Mohammad (P.W.1). He went to his house and informed the family members who accompanied him to save Umar Mohammad. Six years ago on the Eid night at 10-11 PM, he was returning to his village when he saw that accused were taking Umar Mohammad deceased towards the jungle. When he questioned them, they had given abuses to Ali Mohammad (P.W.1). He went to his house and informed the family members who accompanied him to save Umar Mohammad. The witness has further stated that Usman and Salman Bux were armed with farsi whereas remaining accused were armed with lathi. The witness in categorical terms stated that all the accused caused injuries to Umar Mohammad and when, Ali Mohammad (P.W.1) intervened to save Umar Mohammad, then Usman gave a farsi blow with blunt side on the head of Ali Mohammad (P.W.1) and Salman gave a farsi blow with blunt side on his elbow. Yunus was also caused injuries by Arsad and Usman. Meanwhile, number of villagers reached at the spot. Accused decamped from the spot. On the motorcycle of Ratti they brought Umar Mohammad to the village. After tractor was arranged in the morning at 4.00 AM, Umar Mohammad was taken to Jurhera, but he died on the way. 12. Dr. Nishidh Kumar (P.W.9) on 19.4.1997 at 10.45 AM had examined Ali Mohammad (P.W.1) and as per injury report (Ex.P.1) had found the following injuries on his person:- "1. Incised wound with clear margin 7 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm on left parietal region of scalp. 2. Abrasion with scab 31/2 x 1/2 cm on the ant. surface of upper ⅓ of left leg. 3" below to knee joint. 3. Abrasion linear and oblique 81/2 x ⅓ cm on right side of middle thoracic region of the back. 4. Swelling with pain 41/2 x 5 cm on the dorsal surface of right hand." 13. Dr. Nishidh Kumar (P.W.9) also examined Yunus on the same day at 11.05 AM and as per injury report (Ex.P.17), he had found following injuries on his person:- "1. Lacerated wound 21/2 x ⅓ x ⅓ cm on posterior post part of right parietal region of scalp. 2. Contusion with swelling 9 x 51/2 cm on lat. aspect of lower 1/2 of right thigh. 3. Complaint of pain in left Gluteal region, but no external injury mark seen on examination." 14. Dr. Lacerated wound 21/2 x ⅓ x ⅓ cm on posterior post part of right parietal region of scalp. 2. Contusion with swelling 9 x 51/2 cm on lat. aspect of lower 1/2 of right thigh. 3. Complaint of pain in left Gluteal region, but no external injury mark seen on examination." 14. Dr. Nishidh Kumar (P.W.9) on the same day had also conducted autopsy on the dead body of Umar Mohammad and as per post-mortem report (Ex.P.18) had noted following injuries on the person of deceased:- "1. Lacerated wound 7 x 1 cm x bone deep on middle of both parietal region of scalp. 2. Swelling 8 x 6 cm on left parietal region of scalp. 3. Fracture of left parietal bone. Congested, sub dural haematoma on left parietal lobe of brain, size 10 x 9 x 3 cm congested." 15. As per opinion of the doctor, cause of death was sub dural haematoma as a result of injury to skull which was ante-mortem in nature. 16. Shri D.G. Chaturvedi learned counsel appearing for accused Nauman has stated that Ali Mohammad (P.W.1) in his testimony has not attributed any specific injury to Nauman. Therefore, Nauman has been falsely implicated due to delay in lodging of the FIR. It is contended before us that occurrence had taken place on 19.4.1997 at 1.00 AM, FIR was lodged at 6.30 AM and special report had reached the Ilaka Magistrate on 21.4.1997. 17. We are not impressed with the argument raised as Jaan Mohammad (P.W.2) and Rujddin (P.W.3) have specifically stated that Nauman was armed with farsi and had also caused injury on the head of Umar Mohammad deceased. Furthermore, Ali Mohammad (P.W.1) also stated that Nauman alongwith other accused had abducted the deceased and taken over him to jungle. It is also stated that all the accused caused injury to Umar Mohammad. Therefore, though Ali Mohammad (P.W.1) has not specifically named accused Nauman, yet we cannot give benefit of doubt to accused Nauman because he has been specifically named by other eye-witnesses for having caused injury to the deceased. 18. Another argument raised that the witnesses had not seen the occurrence and in the morning dead body was found in the jungle and the witnesses have been introduced later, has no legs to stand. Ali Mohammad (P.W.1) was immediately medico-legally examined. He had suffered injuries in the occurrence. 18. Another argument raised that the witnesses had not seen the occurrence and in the morning dead body was found in the jungle and the witnesses have been introduced later, has no legs to stand. Ali Mohammad (P.W.1) was immediately medico-legally examined. He had suffered injuries in the occurrence. Therefore, presence of Ali Mohammad (P.W.1) at the spot is stamped. Ali Mohammad (P.W.1) stated that after completing his duty as Conductor, he was returning where he saw that accused were taking the deceased to the jungle. Jaan Mohammad (P.W.2) and Rujddin (P.W.3) have categorically stated that on arrival of Ali Mohammad (P.W.1), they had accompanied him to jungle. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot doubt presence of the witnesses namely Ali Mohammad (P.W.1), Jaan Mohammad (P.W.2) and Rujddin (P.W.3). 19. It has also come in evidence that they brought Umar Mohammad to the village and after arranging a conveyance, they took him to Jurhera and on the way, Umar Mohammad had died. Thus, this explains the delay in lodging of the FIR as the witnesses were running here and there to take the deceased to the hospital. Thus, we cannot doubt presence of the witnesses. 20. Having held that the witnesses were present at the scene of occurrence, we find that defence has failed to cause any dent in their testimony as there are neither material contradictions nor discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses. Statements of the witnesses were duly corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of weapons. 21. It is true that on 18.4.1997 at 6.00 PM at a different place in Jungle Ms. Rehana, as per Exhibit-D.11, was raped by Mubin, brother of deceased Umar Mohammad. To us, rape committed upon Rehana is motive for the appellants to commit the offence. 22. Consequently, the present appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. We affirm the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court and the sentence awarded by the trial court to the accused-appellants.Appeal dismissed. *******