JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed by solitary accused Hanuman Das to assail his conviction recorded by the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) cases, Dausa for offence under Section 302 IPC. The trial Judge acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Having convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC, the trial Judge vide a separate order of even date sentenced him to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to undergo six months S.I. 2. Shri Anshuman Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that conviction of the appellant rest upon testimony of three eye-witnesses namely Jagdish (PW-1) Ramjilal (PW-2) and Navratan (PW-3). 3. It is contended before us that all the above said three eye-witnesses are made up eye-witnesses. They had not witnessed the occurrence and after dead body was found in the field where the deceased had gone to case himself, they were introduced as eye-witnesses. In the light of above arguments raised, learned counsel has prayed that we should set aside the conviction pronounced and sentence awarded by the trial court. 4. To appreciate the arguments raised before us, it will be necessary to recapitulate brief facts of the case. 5. Case of the prosecution is that on 25.10.2008 at about 06:00 AM deceased Ramphool son of Kana Ram had gone to case himself in the Charagah near Primary School situated at Gumanpura. The appellant came there and caused several blows of Farsa upon the deceased and thus, caused his death. Criminal proceeding were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit P-1) submitted by Jagdish (PW-1). Written report (Exhibit P-1) when translated into English reads as under:- "To SHO Sahab Police Station, Saithal Subject:- Regarding murder of my Cousin. Sir, In reference to above noted subject, it is submitted that Ramphool son of Kana Ram, Caste Mahawar, resident of Khartala Naya Bas Dhani, son of my uncle (Chacha) has been murdered by Hanuman Das Rana son of Raghunath Rana with a Farsa. At 6 A.M. in the morning when my brother had gone to case himself, Hanuman Das caused several blows with Farsa upon him. At 6 A.M. in the morning when my brother had gone to case himself, Hanuman Das caused several blows with Farsa upon him. I along with Ramji Lal son of Prabhat Raigar, Navratan son of Bhawar Lal, caste Mahawar, resident of Govindpura had witnessed the occurrence with our own eyes. We brought our brother who was caused incised injuries for treatment to Saithal. He could not be treated at Saithal, hence he was brought to the hospital at Dausa. My brother died on the way. At Dausa, the doctor declared him dead. Hence, it is prayed that strict action be taken against the accused. Sd/ Jagdish" 6. On the basis of above said written report (Ex. P1), FIR bearing FIR No. 116/08 (Ex. P3) was registered at police station Saithal on 25.10.2008 at 8.30 A.M. Special report reached Ilaka Magistrate on 31.10.2008. 7. Dr. Ravindra Kumar Sharma (PW-12) on 25.10.2008 at about 12.30 P.M. had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ramphool deceased and had found ten incised injuries on the person of deceased. The injuries reported in the post-mortem report (Ex. P15) are reproduced below:- "1. Incised wound of size 10.5 cm x 1.3 cm x 1 cm deep in middle over Lt cheek and upper neck extending from 1 cm anterior to trachea (tragus) to middle of upper neck anteriorly. 2. Incised wound of size 8.5 cm x 3/4 cm x 1.5 cm (thickness of whole ear 1/2 cm deep. (Transverse) 5 cm part is anterior to ear. 3. Incised wound of size 11.5 cm x 1.5 cm x MS deep (1cm) over Lt temporal region. 4. Incised wound of size 5cm x 3/4 cm x brain deep, Lt parietal region of scalp. 5. Incised wound of size 7.5 cm x 1 cm x brain deep, Lt parietal oblique region of scalp left parietal region brain depth in the middle. 6. 2 Incised wounds of size 1.5 cm x 1/2 cm x ms deep over Lt eye brow. 7. Incised wound of size 11 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm deep oblique over Lt side of face near mid-line extending below eye to near chin. 8. and 9. 6. 2 Incised wounds of size 1.5 cm x 1/2 cm x ms deep over Lt eye brow. 7. Incised wound of size 11 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm deep oblique over Lt side of face near mid-line extending below eye to near chin. 8. and 9. 4 cm x 1/4 cm x 1.5 cm deep sized 2 wound 3/4 cm apart from each other Sic and parallel about 1/2 cm lateral to wound No. 7 in upper part = 4 cm length is from margin of upper lip towards eye. 10. Incised wound of size 4 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep (1/2 cm in bone mandible) Lateral to wound no 7 in lower part. 4 cm length is from margin of lower lip downward." 8. As per Dr. Ravindra Kumar Sharma (PW-12) cause of death was Coma due to ante-mortem injuries No. 4 and 5 which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The doctor further declared that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. 9. As said earlier, conviction of the present appellant rest on the testimony of three eye witnesses namely Jagdish (PW-1), Ramji Lal (PW-2) and Navratan (PW-3), who belong to the caste of deceased and are related to him in brotherhood. 10. Jagdish (PW-1) in Court specifically stated that on 25.10.2008, at 6 A.M. he had gone to open field to case himself. At that time Ramphool was also sitting there with him to case himself. Meanwhile, accused Hanuman Das came and caused injuries to deceased Ramphool with Farsa. The witness stated that he brought his brother to Saithal Hospital, from there he was referred to Dausa. At Dausa doctor had declared him dead. 11. To similar effect are the statements made by Ramji Lal (PW-2) and Navratan (PW-3). They have also deposed in Court that they had gone in the fields to case themselves when accused caused injuries to the deceased. 12. We need not notice the testimony of other witnesses who had participated in investigation. 13. 11. To similar effect are the statements made by Ramji Lal (PW-2) and Navratan (PW-3). They have also deposed in Court that they had gone in the fields to case themselves when accused caused injuries to the deceased. 12. We need not notice the testimony of other witnesses who had participated in investigation. 13. Shri Ansuman Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant to dislodge the presence of Jagdish (PW-1), Ramji Lal (PW-2) and Navratan (PW-3) has contended that in the present case occurrence had taken place on 25.10.2008, at 6 A.M. He has contended that in the present case, FIR was lodged at Police Station Saithal, but the special report reached the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dausa on 31.10.2008. Learned counsel has contended that distance between Saithal and Dausa is 10 Kms. 14. Learned counsel had contended that no explanation has been furnished as to why special report reached the Ilaka Magistrate after delay of six days. To fortify this submission, learned counsel has further contended that post-mortem was conducted on 25.10.2008 at 12.30 P.M. It is contended that Panchayatnama/inquest (Ex. P9), was submitted to doctor who had conducted autopsy. 15. Shri Saxena has read Panchayatnama/inquest (Ex. P9) to contend that it is totally silent regarding the manner of occurrence, nature of occurrence and presence of eye witnesses at the spot. Shri Saxena, has further submitted that on the same day i.e. on 25.10.2008 vide memo (Ex. P12) dead body was handed over to Yadram brother of the deceased. Learned counsel has submitted that Panchayatnama/inquest (Ex. P9), memo regarding description of the dead body (Ex. P10) and Supurdaginama (Ex. P12) are totally silent regarding name of eye-witnesses and manner in which occurrence had taken place. It is further submitted that in these three vital documents, name of the accused has not been specified. Thus, Shri Saxena has urged before us that the prosecution was groping in dark and till the special report reached the Ilaka Magistrate on 31.10.2008, it had no version and the eyewitnesses were introduced later sometime before 31.10.2008. 16. To buttress this argument, learned counsel has submitted that even though accused was arrested on 25.10.2008, his disclosure under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, regarding concealment of weapon (Ex. P16) was recorded on 31.10.2008. 17. Shri Saxena has further referred to the post-mortem report (Ex. 16. To buttress this argument, learned counsel has submitted that even though accused was arrested on 25.10.2008, his disclosure under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, regarding concealment of weapon (Ex. P16) was recorded on 31.10.2008. 17. Shri Saxena has further referred to the post-mortem report (Ex. P.15) to contend that in the column of person who brought the dead body, specifically the names of Chandrabhan Sharma and Yadram have been noted. We reproduced Column No. 1 and 2 of the post-mortem report (Ex. P.15) as under:- ^^'ko ykus okys dk uke %& pUnzHkku 'kekZ] ,lŒ,pŒvksŒ dksrokyh] nkSlk 'ko igpku djus okys dk uke % 1- pUnzHkku 'kekZ] ,lŒ,pŒvksŒ dksrokyh] nkSlk 2- ;knjke iq= Jh dUgS;k yky egkoj & e`rd dk HkkbZA** 18. We almost fell for the arguments advanced by Shri Anshuman Saxena. It is true that in the present case special report had reached the Ilaka Magistrate on 31.10.2008. It is also equally correct that after arrest of the accused on 25.10.2008, recovery of weapon upon disclosure statement dated 31.10.2006 (Ex. P.16) was affected on 31.10.2008 vide recovery memo (Ex. P.8). Verification of the record also reveal that in Panchayatnama/inquest (Ex. P.9), memo regarding description of dead body (Ex. P.10) and Supurdaginama of dead body (Ex. P.12), there is no mention of name of the accused, eye-witnesses or the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. Therefore, at the first instance, argument raised by the learned counsel that the witnesses were later introduced looked probable to us. However, on close scrutiny of record and further inquiries we have found that the accused was arrested on the same date of occurrence, i.e. on 25.10.2008 at 7.30 PM. On the next day, i.e. on 26.10.2008 he was produced before the Ilaka Magistrate and he was remanded to police custody. We have seen remand application dated 25.10.2008. In that application not only number and gist of the FIR has been specified but name of complainant Jagdish was also mentioned. Therefore, it can be said with certainty that as per remand application presented on 26.10.2008, name of the complainant was with the police and remand application contain gist of the FIR. Thus, it cannot be said that the version was introduced later. It is a case where the Investigating Officer was not vigilant enough to reproduce the contents of the FIR in the inquest report. Thus, it cannot be said that the version was introduced later. It is a case where the Investigating Officer was not vigilant enough to reproduce the contents of the FIR in the inquest report. Delay in reaching of special report to Ilaka Magistrate, because of inflation of number of accused assume importance and put the Court on guard to sift the grain from chaff so that the complainant party may not have widen the net, however in present case we cannot become oblivious of the fact that it is a case of solitary accused. We are also conscious that in village in morning number of persons go to case themselves. Therefore, at 6.00 AM presence of the witnesses in the field where they had gone to case themselves with Ramphool deceased is natural and probable. Once presence of Jagdish (PW.1) is noted in the remand application presented on 26.10.2008, we have no doubt that the occurrence has been witnessed by Jagdish (PW.1), Ramjilal (PW.2) and Navratan (PW.3). Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the witnesses were not present at the scene of occurrence cannot be believed. 19. As a result of above discussion, we find no merit in the present appeal. It is hereby, dismissed. We affirm the conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the trial court upon the appellant. 20. However, we do appreciate the able assistance rendered by Shri Anshuman Saxena and to prevent lapses on the part of Investigating Officer which had occurred in the present case, we issue following directions:- "(a). That the Magistrate while granting police or judicial remand of the accused shall insist that alongwith the accused, Investigating Officer should produce the case-diary. (b). That on each and every day when the accused is produced before the Ilaka Magistrate for police or judicial remand, it shall be mandatory for the concerned Magistrate to put his initial on each and every page of the case-diary." 21. In view of directions issued above, we direct the Registrar General of this court to circulate copy of this judgment among all the Magistrates so that at the time of remand of the accused, case-diary is produced and each page of the same is signed by the Magistrate.