Judgment : (Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.) Present criminal appeal has been preferred, against the judgment and order dated 06.01.1986 passed by Vth Additional Session Judge, Agra in S.T. No. 535 of 1983, Police Station Fatehur Sikari, District Agra arising out of case crime no.126 of 1982 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC. Pertinent to mention that in this case appeal was initially preferred by four appellants, Prabhu, Ram Ji Lal, Vinod and Bhika but appellant nos.1 and 2 Prabhi and Ram Ji Lal died during pendency of this appeal therefore, their appeal stood abated vide order of this Court dated 11.01.2016. Now this appeal is confined to only the two surviving appellants nos.3 and 4 Vinod and Bhika. Fact germane for this appeal as discernible from record appears to be that first informant Jwala son of Tota Ram, resident of Village Aulenda, P.S. Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra lodged a written report at Police Station Fatehpur sikri on 10.09.1982 at 9.15 p.m. regarding the incident of murder of his son having taken place in the intervening night of 9/10.09.1982 at about 4.30 in the morning. It was informed by the informant that some dispute regarding partition of property was existing in between the informant and his two brothers Prabhu and Ram Ji Lal. Two days prior to the incident on 08.09.1982 his brother Prabhu in the presence of Cunni Singh Thakur of his village and Rameshwar (the brother in law of deceased Vasudev) said to his wife Mahadevi for settling the dispute else Vasudev would have to face consequences. Today in the intervening night of 9/10.09.1982, the first informant along with his son Vasudev went to plough his field, his son was ploughing his field while the first informant was sitting on the 'merh' (elevated border/path of field). It was moonlight at around 4.30 a.m. when his son was busy in ploughing field, the accused persons Prabhu, Ram Ji Lal possessing Lathi and Vinod possessing knife and Bhika possessing Farsa (axe like weapon) arrived at the spot and began to assault him by saying that the deceased is alone at lonely place and he can be killed. It was moonlight at around 4.30 a.m. when his son was busy in ploughing field, the accused persons Prabhu, Ram Ji Lal possessing Lathi and Vinod possessing knife and Bhika possessing Farsa (axe like weapon) arrived at the spot and began to assault him by saying that the deceased is alone at lonely place and he can be killed. Informant Jwala and his son Vasudev raised alarm whereupon Keshav Dutt son of Tunda, Damodar son of Girraj, Gajadhar son of Karan Singh arrived at the spot and challenged the assailants, who made their escape good wading through pearl millet (Bajra) field. Vasudev succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Dead body of deceased was taken back to village and thereafter the first informant came to the scribe of the FIR Triloki Nath Sharma son of Banwari Lal Sharma got written the FIR and lodged the report at P.S. Fatehpur Sikri on 10.09.1982 at 9.15 a.m. The written report is exhibit Ka-1 on record. Relevant entries of the report were in Chik FIR No.112 at P.S. Fatehpur Sikri on 10.09.1982 at 9.15 a.m. at Crime No. 126 of 1982 under Section 302 IPC. The Chik FIR is exhibit Ka-3. On the basis of entries made in Chik FIR case was registered at Rapat No.14 at 9.15 a.m. on 10.09.1982 at aforesaid crime number (126 of 1982). Copy of the same is exhibit Ka-4 on record. Thereafter, investigation of the case took place and inquest report of the deceased was prepared on 10.09.1982. Inquest report commenced at 11.00 a.m. and completed at 4.00 p.m. In the opinion of Panchan for knowing the actual cause of death, it was found necessary to send the body for post-mortem examination. This inquest report is exhibit Ka-5. Thereafter, relevant papers were prepared for sending the dead body of deceased Vasudev for post mortem examination. Challan of dead body is exhibit Ka-6. Photo Nash is exhibit Ka-7. Letter to CMO is exhibit Ka-8. The Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot and prepared memo of blood stained cloth (Angauchha) of deceased Vasudev. The same is exhibit Ka-10. He also took sample of plain and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence in two different containers and prepared memo of the same as exhibit Ka-11. Letter to CMO is exhibit Ka-8. The Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot and prepared memo of blood stained cloth (Angauchha) of deceased Vasudev. The same is exhibit Ka-10. He also took sample of plain and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence in two different containers and prepared memo of the same as exhibit Ka-11. Pertinent to mention that post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Vasudev took place at mortuary Agra on 11.09.1982 at 3.55 p.m. The prosecution witness PW-3 Dr. R.L. Kapoor has found 19 ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased which read as follows: Ante-mortem Injuries:- 1. I.W. 3"x 3/10"x scalp on the right side top of head 4.5" above right ear. 2. Lacerated wound 1"x 4/10"X scalp on right side head 3" above right ear. 3. I.W. in 'L' shape 2" x 3/10" x skin deep on left side of head 2.5" left ear. 4. Traumatic swelling 3" x 3" on right side head just above right ear. 5. L.W. 3/10" x 1/10" skin deep on the right side of forehead 1/2" above right eyebrow. 6. I.W. 1.5" x 3/4" x bone on right elbow interior aspect. 7. Multiple contusion in area of 9" x 6" on interior and back of right upper arm. 8. I.W. 0.5" x 2/10" x muscles and back of right forearm just 2.5" below right elbow. 9. Multiple abrasions in area of 6" x 4.5" on the back of right hand and wrist. 10. I.W. 0.5" x 3/10" x muscle on inner part right upper arm 3" above elbow. 11. I.W. 0.5" x 2/10" x muscle on inner part right upper arm 0.5" below injury no.10. 12. 12 incised wound x bone on back of left upper arm 4" above left elbow. 13. Multiple contusion in area of 24"x9" on interior aspect of whole left upper arm forearm upto wrist both radius and ulna fractured. 14. Incised wound 0.5 x 2/10" x bone on back of left hand at the base of left index finger. 15. Traumatic swelling 4x4" on back of left hand all metacarpal bone fractured. 16. Lacerated wound 1"X0.5"x muscle on the left leg 4" below front of left knee. 17. Lacerated wound 3/4" x 0.5" x bone on the front of right leg 4" below right knee tibia bone fractured. 18. Multiple abrasion 5" x 1.5" back of left scapula. 19. 15. Traumatic swelling 4x4" on back of left hand all metacarpal bone fractured. 16. Lacerated wound 1"X0.5"x muscle on the left leg 4" below front of left knee. 17. Lacerated wound 3/4" x 0.5" x bone on the front of right leg 4" below right knee tibia bone fractured. 18. Multiple abrasion 5" x 1.5" back of left scapula. 19. Multiple abrasions 4"x2.5" on back of left shoulder on opening right side clavicle broken. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was said to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Post-mortem examination report is exhibit Ka-2. Besides, the Investigating Officer also took various steps for completing the investigation and recorded statement of witnesses, prepared site plan of incident and has proved site plan as exhibit Ka-9 on record. Investigating Officer after completing the examination submitted charge-sheet, exhibit Ka-12 against the appellants. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Session. It was made over for trial to the aforesaid trial court. The trial court gave opportunity of hearing to the appellants on the point of charge and found prima-facie ground existing for framing charge u/s 302 read with 34 of the IPC, therefore, framed charge under aforesaid sections. The charge was read over and explained to the accused appellants who denied the charge and opted for trial. Prosecution was asked to adduce its testimony whereupon prosecution produced in all 7 witnesses. A brief reference of the same is required to be mentioned. PW-1 is complainant Jwala. He is father of deceased Vasudev. He claims himself to be present on the spot and incident took place in his presence and he has proved exhibit Ka-1, FIR. PW-2 Damodar is co-villager and claims himself to be an eye-witness and has stated that it was a moonlight night and he saw the incident around 4.00 to 4.15 a.m. at the place of occurrence. He has described facts about the incident. PW-3 is Dr. R.L. Kapoor. He has conducted post mortem examination of deceased on 11.09.1982 and has proved the same as exhibit Ka-2. PW-4 is Prem Chandra Dubey, Head Constable who has proved Chik FIR, exhibit Ka-3 and the relevant GD entry made in rapat no. 14 at 9.15 a.m. on 09.10.1982 as exhibit Ka-4. PW-3 is Dr. R.L. Kapoor. He has conducted post mortem examination of deceased on 11.09.1982 and has proved the same as exhibit Ka-2. PW-4 is Prem Chandra Dubey, Head Constable who has proved Chik FIR, exhibit Ka-3 and the relevant GD entry made in rapat no. 14 at 9.15 a.m. on 09.10.1982 as exhibit Ka-4. PW-5 is Ram Pratap Singh, he has taken the dead body to Mortuary Agra in his custody for post mortem examination. PW-6 is Investigating Officer S.I. Parsuram, he has proved investigation conducted by him in this case and has stated that the case was registered in his presence. He has proved various papers exhibit Ka-5, exhibit Ka-6, exhibit Ka-7, exhibit Ka-8 and site plan exhibit Ka-9. He has also proved exhibit Ka-10 memo of 'Angauchha' and simple and blood stained soil exhibit Ka-11 and material exhibits 1, 2 & 3. The two containers of mud soil as material exhibit 1 and 2 and Angauchha material exhibit 3. He has also proved charge-sheet exhibit Ka-1. PW-7 Rameshwar Dayal has proved the fact of threatening extended by accused Prabhu to the mother of deceased in his presence. He happens to be the brother in law of deceased Vasudev. CW-1 Harveer Sahai has been examined by trial court to prove GD rapat no. 22 at 17.10 hours, which is marked as exhibit Kha-1 on record. Thereafter, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In their statement both the appellants Vinod and Bhika stated that they have been falsely implicated because of partibandi and enmity. The learned trial court after hearing both the sides on merit passed the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentenced the accused persons with life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Consequently, this appeal. We have heard Sri Rajul Bhargawa learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manish Singh, Advocate appearing for the appellants, Sri M. S. Yadav learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. It has been comprehensively urged by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that in this case the occurrence in fact took place around mid-night and no one witnessed the incident which was caused by unknown persons. The witnesses, who are alleged to have seen the occurrence, are relatives and partisan witnesses. It has been comprehensively urged by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that in this case the occurrence in fact took place around mid-night and no one witnessed the incident which was caused by unknown persons. The witnesses, who are alleged to have seen the occurrence, are relatives and partisan witnesses. No one saw the incident. The very motive suggested for committing the crime is weak and the property had already been partitioned between the first informant and his brothers and each of them was enjoying exclusive possession over the property and there was no point in committing murder of Vasudev. First information report is ante-timed and the distance of village Aulenda is about 6 miles from the police station and it is stated that the first informant Jwala Prasad travelled all along on foot to the police station. He was alone. The first information report is ante-timed and the report in fact was written at the police station and the same was lodged only after the inquest report was prepared in the evening that is why the special report of the crime was sent at 17.10 hours to the higher authorities on the very same day 10.09.1982. Unusual long time was deliberately taken in completing the inquest report from 11.00 am to 4.00 p.m. on 10.09.1982. Learned counsel adds that the holistic view of the entire incident will make it apparent that no one has witnessed the incident and the appellants have been deliberately dragged in, in this case and the investigation has been manipulated in collusion with the complainant. Place of occurrence is not fixed. No blood stains have been found in the field where deceased Vasudev is stated to have been assaulted by the appellants. This raises suspicion about the prosecution story. Per contra Sri Chandrajeet Yadav, Learned AGA submitted that case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the cogent testimony of the witnesses, who have given particulars details of the incident and the various details and the same cannot be doubted under the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned AGA further submitted that the FIR has been proved by the specific testimony of the complainant PW-1 Jwala and lodging of the same at P.S. Fatehpur Sikri has been proved by PW-4 Prem Chandra Dubey, Head Constable. Learned AGA further submitted that the FIR has been proved by the specific testimony of the complainant PW-1 Jwala and lodging of the same at P.S. Fatehpur Sikri has been proved by PW-4 Prem Chandra Dubey, Head Constable. Even Investigating Officer PW-6, S.I. Parshuram has proved lodging of FIR in his presence at the concerned police station and has also proved the inquest report exhibit Ka-5, which he got prepared by S.I. Amar Singh. Site plan has also been proved as exhibit Ka-9. Sample of plain earth and blood stained earth from the spot has been collected by the I.O. and the memo of the same was prepared and proved by I.O. as exhibit Ka-11. The Investigating Officer also recorded statement of prosecution witnesses, Jwala Prasad, Damodar, Keshav Dev, Gajadhar and Rameshwar etc. The motive has been specifically proved by PW-1 Jwala, whereas, the landed property situated in district Bharatpur of Rajasthan remained undivided in between both the sides and the appellants wanted division of entire property in five parts. Witnesses are natural and residents of same village except Rameshwar who is brother in law of deceased Vasudev and he was present at home two days prior to the incident on 08.09.1982. Therefore, there is no force in argument that witnesses are either interested or partisan, on the contrary, testimony of witnesses is clinching, consistent and inspires confidence. In view of the rival contentions, the moot point involved in this appeal relates to fact as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove guilt against appellants u/s 302/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt? On the very outset of the discussion, we may consider the background and the genesis of facts of the case, particularly the motive suggested for committing the crime and the occurrence and the fact that the incident was caused by the appellants and it was witnessed by the prosecution witnesses of fact. On the very outset of the discussion, we may consider the background and the genesis of facts of the case, particularly the motive suggested for committing the crime and the occurrence and the fact that the incident was caused by the appellants and it was witnessed by the prosecution witnesses of fact. We may take into contemplation gist of FIR, exhibit Ka-1, which is based on fact that some dispute took place regarding partition of property between first informant and his two brother Prabhu and Ram Ji Lal and two days prior to the incident i.e. on 08.09.1982 Prabhu said to informant's wife Mahadevi that matter should be got settled, else, Vasudev will have to suffer consequences for non-settlement and these altercations took place in presence of villagers Chunni Singh and Rameshwar Dayal (brother in law of deceased Vasudev). Thereafter, FIR describes about the incident which took place in the intervening night of 9/10.09.1982, when the first informant along with his son Vasudev had gone to his field for ploughing. He sat on the 'Medh' (elevated short mud wall of the field) while his son was ploughing the field. It was moonlight and around 4.30 a.m. when his son turned from the side of standing pearl millet crops (bajra) the assailants appeared and began to beat his son with Lathi, Knife and Farsa (axe like weapon) and they were saying that they have found him at lonely place for committing the crime. His son raised alarm and simultaneously alarm was raised by the first informant, whereupon Keshav Dev, Damodar and Gajadhar all co-villagers arrived on the spot and saw the incident and challenged the assailants, whereupon the assailants made their escape good. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Now we may switch over to specific testimony regarding motive by carefully analyzing testimony of PW-1 Jwala, the informant and PW-7 Rameshwar Dayal. PW-1 Jwala has specifically stated in his testimony that the landed property at village Aulenda was partitioned among his brothers and himself but the landed property in Rajasthan was not partitioned and divided. The accused persons wanted that both the lands at village Aulenda and at Bharatpur in Rajasthan be consolidated and partitioned in five parts which offer was refused by the first informant due to which the accused persons were having grudge against him. The accused persons wanted that both the lands at village Aulenda and at Bharatpur in Rajasthan be consolidated and partitioned in five parts which offer was refused by the first informant due to which the accused persons were having grudge against him. In this regard, testimony of Rameshwar Dayal PW-7 is noticeable on point that act of threatening took place in his presence at the house of Vasudev and first informant when Prabhu, one of the co accused told mother of Vasudev for partition of field else Vasudev would have to face dire consequence. This witness has stated that the threat was given in the presence of Thakur Chunni Singh, whereupon, mother of Vasudev said that this fact (regarding partition of field) should be stated by him to Vasudev itself. After careful scrutiny of the cross examination of Rameshwar Dayal PW-7, we discover that fact of presence of this witnesses, who happens to be brother in law of deceased Vasudev, in the house of first informant at the relevant point of time, has not been challenged in the least by the appellants. However, various questions have been asked in cross examination about his statement recorded by the I.O. He has denied suggestion that he being brother-in-law of Vasudev the deceased is not telling the truth. Therefore, act of threats being extended for forcing partition of the landed property is reasonably proved by the specific testimony of PW-7. Thus, point of dispute and grudge on account of non-partition of landed property as stated in the FIR and in the testimony of PW-1 Jwala Prasad stands corroborated and established and it cannot be said that the motive suggested for causing for committing the crime is either weak or not proved. In so far as, the occurrence is concerned, we notice that prosecution witnesses PW-1 Jwala and PW-2 Damodar have been produced to prove the same by the prosecution. PW-1 Jwala has stated about the incident that it was around 4.30 a.m. he along with his son had gone with buffalo cart for ploughing their fields. His son Vasudev was ploughing the field when the assailants appeared on the spot from a standing pearl millet (bajra) field and founding him alone at that place and at that point of time beaten him. Accused Prabhu, Ram Ji Lal were possessing Lathi and Vinod was possessing knife and Bhika with Farsa (Axe like weapon). His son Vasudev was ploughing the field when the assailants appeared on the spot from a standing pearl millet (bajra) field and founding him alone at that place and at that point of time beaten him. Accused Prabhu, Ram Ji Lal were possessing Lathi and Vinod was possessing knife and Bhika with Farsa (Axe like weapon). Vasudev (deceased) raised the alarm. Simultaneously, the first informant also raised alarm and in the meanwhile, assailants assaulted the deceased and in the process took him to the Chak Road of the field. In the meanwhile, Damodar, Keshav Dev and Gajadhar also arrived on the spot after hearing the alarm. All of them challenged the assailants whereupon the assailants escaped from the place of occurrence, but the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The dead body was taken to the village and was kept under thatched roof (Chhappar). The first informant came to one Triloki at Fatehpur Sikri and dictated the report to him and reported the matter to police station Fatehpur Sikri. The description of the incident has been corroborated by another prosecution witness Damodar, who may be said to be the independent witness. He is not related to the first informant or the deceased. Perusal of his testimony reflects that he had been searching for his cow in the same night around 2.30 a.m. It was moonlight he was being accompanied by Keshav Dev on way they met with Gajadhar, they reached at the crossing around 4/4.15 a.m. when they heard noise/alarm of Vasudev and Jwala Prasad. They rushed to the spot where they saw Prabhu, Ram Ji, Vinod and Bhika, the accused persons assaulting the deceased. Accused Prabhu, Ram Ji Lal were possessing Lathi and Vinod was possessing knife and Bhika with Farsa (Axe like weapon). On being challenged, the assailants left the scene of the occurrence and made their escape good. Vasudev died on the spot. First informant asked them to help him for carrying the dead body to home, whereupon, they helped him and placed the dead body in a cart and conveyed it over to his house in the village. Both prosecution witnesses have been cross examined, wherein nothing adverse or unusual has surfaced. The first informant has given reasonable and satisfactory replies to all queries regarding the incident. Both prosecution witnesses have been cross examined, wherein nothing adverse or unusual has surfaced. The first informant has given reasonable and satisfactory replies to all queries regarding the incident. PW-1 had also stated that one day prior to the incident, field was ploughed but ploughing was not complete. On the fateful day, ploughing had already been done for an hour or so. This witness has been confronted on various aspects of the case and points regarding the time and place as to when he started off from his home to the field and arrived at the field, has been answered satisfactorily by this witness. He has also stated that first information report was written at shop outside the police station around 9.00 a.m. and he had gone to report the matter all alone. He has stated that he took short-cut and covered his distance through fields and he returned from police station around 12.00 a.m. Argument has been raised to this extent that various particulars described in the testimony has not been described in the FIR, therefore, testimony is improved one and tutored. The argument so advanced on behalf of the appellants lacks force for the reason that FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the incident and the same cannot be accepted to contain each and every minor detail of the incident. The argument has also been advanced that the presence of PW-1 Jwala is doubtful but no adverse or unnatural circumstance has been brought to our notice nor we gather the same from the testimony on record, which may whisper about non-presence of PW-1 on the spot at the relevant point of time. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that in case the first informant was also present on the spot and the assailants were as many as four in numbers, how and why they spared the first informant for creating evidence against themselves. In this context, we may take notice of fact that specific question has been asked in cross examination of PW-1 by the defence which has been aptly replied by stating that at that relevant point of time, he was 50-60 steps away. In this context, we may take notice of fact that specific question has been asked in cross examination of PW-1 by the defence which has been aptly replied by stating that at that relevant point of time, he was 50-60 steps away. This distance (of 50-60 steps) in itself is sufficient for the informant to keep himself safe and he cannot be said to be in close range of the assailants therefore, possibility of assault in comparison to the distance of PW-1 from the assailants was the reason as to why the assailants could not find it convenient to beat the informant. Similarly the fact that the informant went all alone to lodge the report at the police station under the circumstances is believable for the specific testimony of PW-2 Damodar also. In his cross-examination Damodar has also proved the incident of assault and death of Vasudev on the chak road. The very place of death has been proved by the Investigating Officer also when he deposed that he took simple and blood stained earth from the spot and has proved the memo of the same as exhibit Ka-11. PW-6 the I.O. Parshuram has proved his investigation and stated that he in fact prepared the site plan exhibit Ka-9 at the instance of the prosecution witnesses and the first informant. He has denied suggestion that the FIR was written around 4/5 p.m. on the fateful day and till then the names of the assailants were not known. The suggestion so raised has been specifically denied. The Investigating Officer has also stated that it had rained in night. It has also emerged in his cross-examination that he did not find any blood stains in the field of Jwala but he found blood stains on chak road, but there were marks/ foot prints of the assailants in the field and the crop was destroyed. Testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 virtually fixes the place of occurrence as the very field of Jwala adjoining chak road. For the sake of argument, assuming it to be that PW-1 being father of the deceased is an interested witness but there is no plausible reason to disbelieve and over throw the natural testimony of PW-2 Damodar who happens to be an independent witness and nothing adverse and unnatural has surfaced in his entire testimony. For the sake of argument, assuming it to be that PW-1 being father of the deceased is an interested witness but there is no plausible reason to disbelieve and over throw the natural testimony of PW-2 Damodar who happens to be an independent witness and nothing adverse and unnatural has surfaced in his entire testimony. The reason of his presence on the spot has been stated to be due to search being made by him for tracing out his missing cow in the said night. Query has been raised as to how and why he started off search around 2.30 a.m. in the night. But this query by itself cannot be said to be substantial, for the reason that this witness has stated that he was possessing about a dozen cattle and he thought it proper that the missing cow will return back home but till 2.30 a.m. in the night when the cow did not return, the person being aggrieved by non-return of his cow may become anxious about the whereabouts of his cow and therefore, he may go for search at 2.30 a.m. and there is no such abnormality. PW-2 Damodar has specifically stated in his cross-examination that he was accompanied by Keshav, co-villager, therefore, there is no force in the argument as to how and why the witness started search operation only at 2.30 p.m. and not prior to it. PW-2 has given specific testimony on the point of his arrival on the spot that he along with other persons rushed to the spot and they arrived at the spot when they found the deceased dead on the chak road. Defence has raised argument to the extent that as per this specific testimony, it is apparent that this witness has not seen the real assailants. But this specific testimony of PW-2 appears to be isolated and stray statement, for the reason that the very testimony as given in examination-in-chief by this witness narrates in detail the names of the accused persons and the name of weapons being possessed by them. This specific testimony has not been specifically challenged by the defence. Further, it has been suggested that the Investigating Officer has not recorded his statement regarding his missing cow. This by itself will not negate the specific testimony given by PW-2 Damodar regarding occurrence. Moreso, this witness was accompanied by Keshav. This specific testimony has not been specifically challenged by the defence. Further, it has been suggested that the Investigating Officer has not recorded his statement regarding his missing cow. This by itself will not negate the specific testimony given by PW-2 Damodar regarding occurrence. Moreso, this witness was accompanied by Keshav. The defence could have well examined Keshav in their support on this point. Merely non-recording of certain statements by the Investigating Officer u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by itself will not throw away the entire testimony given by the prosecution witnesses if found consistent, cogent and unchallenged. Now, we may also notice the testimony of PW-3 Dr. R.L. Kapoor, who conducted postmortem examination 11.09.1982 at District Hospital, Agra. Obviously, he found 19 ante-mortem injuries on the various parts of body of the deceased and all these injuries, in the opinion of doctor, can be caused by use of knife, farsa (Axe like weapon) and these injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. Cause of death is said to be shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. Injury Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, are incised wounds on head/skull above ear, right forearm, left forearm, left hand finger etc. There are lacerated wounds as injuries nos. 2 and 5 above right ear and on forehead above right eyebrow, respectively. Then, there are certain abrasions and injury no. 4 is traumatic swelling on the right side of head right ear. Injury No. 7 is multiple contusions on the right forearm. Injury No.9 is multiple abrasions on the wrist of right hand. Injury no. 13 is multiple contusion on left hand reddish and ulna fractured and traumatic swelling on back of left hand. Injury No. 15 traumatic swelling on back of left hand all metacarpal bones fractured. Injury No. 16 is lacerated wound on the front of right leg 4 cm below right knee. Tibia bone fractured. Injury No. 18 has been stated to be multiple abrasions on back of left scapula. Injury No. 19 is multiple abrasions on back of left shoulder. On opening right side clavicle broken. All these injuries have been stated to have been caused by the weapons being possessed by the appellants. In the testimony of prosecution witnesses, it has come that beating lasted for about 5 minutes. Injury No. 19 is multiple abrasions on back of left shoulder. On opening right side clavicle broken. All these injuries have been stated to have been caused by the weapons being possessed by the appellants. In the testimony of prosecution witnesses, it has come that beating lasted for about 5 minutes. These specific injuries in form of lacerated wounds, traumatic swelling, and multiple abrasions may be reasonably construed to have been caused by weapons possessed and used by the assailants. In the cross-examination of PW-3 Dr. R.L. Kapoor, no challenge has been given to the specific testimony of doctor that these injuries may not have been caused by using knife, farsa (axe like weapon) and Lathi. In this view of the matter, the very injuries on the body of the deceased can be said to have been caused by use of knife, lathi and farsa and as per testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 it has been reasonably proved beyond doubt that the appellants are responsible for causing these injuries. Further, there is no plausible reason that the complainant being father of the deceased will try to falsely implicate his own real brothers and nephews for the murder of his son sparing the real assailants. We cannot construe any such circumstance either pointing to false implication of the accused persons in place of real culprits. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was some dispute regarding partition of the landed property situated in district Bharatpur (Rajasthan) and the accused persons wanted division of the entire landed property in five equal parts/shares which offer was refused by none other than the first informant and this was the immediate motive for committing the crime and the accused persons must have been in know how of whereabouts of the deceased and the first informant that they were visiting the field and the accused persons concealed themselves in a field where pearl millet crop was standing and after finding appropriate and opportune moment the accused persons severely assaulted the deceased (Vasudev), who died on the spot in consequence of the injuries caused to him by use of lathi, knife and farsa. Even the Investigating Officer has not come out with any material during investigation that the incident was caused by some other persons or that the incident took place sometime around midnight instead of 4.30 a.m. Relevant to take note of fact that PW-4 Prem Chandra Dubey has specifically stated in his cross-examination that special report of the incident was sent at 17.10 hours and relevant GD entry has been proved as exhibit kha-1. This exhibit kha-1 has been formally proved by another witness CW-1 Harveer Sahai who brought in trial court the register of concerned GD rapat no. 22 at 17.10 hrs and has proved the same. Argument to the extent that the FIR was lodged only around 4 to 5.00 p.m. on 10.09.1982 cannot be taken to be true in view of fact that the inquest report was completed at 4.00 p.m. and the ante-mortem injuries were many in number therefore, this may be the reason as to how and why the inquest report got delayed. More so, it emerges out from testimony that the Investigating Officer arrived at the spot after lodging of the FIR around 11.30 A.M. or 12.00 (noon) on 10.09.1982. Therefore, exhibit kha-1 can be treated to be report in favour of the prosecution, rather than the defence. It is obvious that the special report of offence was sent to the higher authorities vide GD rapat no. 22 at 17.10 hrs on 10.09.1982, therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR is ante-timed. Whatever discrepancies in testimonies of prosecution witnesses found, the same are minor and trivial in nature, as such cannot be said to be substantial one. On the contrary, these contradictions are natural as the prosecution witnesses cannot be expected to give panoramic and pictorial view of the incident with minute details the incident from beginning to end. We know that the police personnel in order to complete the investigation in some cases may commit latches and negligence but their latches and negligence will not be sufficient to brush aside the proved occurrence. We know that the police personnel in order to complete the investigation in some cases may commit latches and negligence but their latches and negligence will not be sufficient to brush aside the proved occurrence. It is true that the testimony of interested and relative witness/ partisan witness is to be scrutinized with extra caution viz-a-viz with the attendant circumstances of the case and if the same is found to be consistent and clinching there is no reason to disbelieve the same and it is to be seen whether the incident is reasonably proved by the prosecution or not and if the incident alleged in the FIR stands proved beyond reasonable doubt by clinching testimony of prosecution witnesses then minor contradictions will not affect establishment of guilt of the accused persons. We may conveniently sum up that the trial judge has also taken into consideration various aspect of the case and has appraised testimony of prosecution witnesses in right prospective and has rightly recorded finding of conviction and sentenced the appellants with life imprisonment which is minimum punishment provided for the offence in question. We may conclude that the appeal is devoid of merit, consequently the appeal is dismissed. Both the appellants Vinod and Bhika are on bail. Their personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They be taken into custody forthwith to serve out remaining part of sentences imposed on them. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the concerned trial court for necessary compliance. ———————