Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1184 (ALL)

Jai Ram v. State of U. P.

2018-05-10

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, PRASHANT KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. These criminal appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 24th April, 1982 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 277 of 1980 arising out of Case Crime No. 46 of 1980, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 302 I.P.C., Police Station Sammanpur, District Faizabad. 2. Vide impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court had convicted and sentenced accused Jai Ram, Sita Ram, Sri Ram, Bansh Raj, Lal Bahadur, Sant Ram, Shiv Pujan, Ram Newal, Badari, Ram Jas, Ram Bachan, Vedeshi and Ram Karan to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/149 I.P.C. Accused Jai Ram, Sri Ram, Sant Ram, Ram Bachan, Ram Karan, Sita Ram and Ram Newal had been further convicted and sentenced to undergo one and half years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C. Accused Lal Bahadur, Vedeshi, Badari, Bansh Raj and Ram Jas had been further convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C. It had further been directed that all the sentences would run concurrently. 3. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, three appeals were filed i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 353 of 1982, 390 of 1982 and 452 of 1982. 4. In Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 1982 (one of the said three appeals) appellant no. 7, Bans Raj had died and, therefore, this appeal on behalf of appellant no. 7, Bans Raj had stood abated vide order dated 28.05.2012. In Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 1982, since all the appellants had died, the same had stood abated vide order dated 28.05.2012. In Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 1982, since appellant nos. 2, Ram Newal, and appellant no. 3, Badari had died, their appeals had stood abated vide orders dated 28.05.2012 and 07.05.2015 respectively. As per report dated 06.02.2018 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad has reported the death of appellant No. 1, Sita Ram also, therefore, this entire appeal gets abated. 5. Thus, only Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 1982 survives on behalf of six accused-appellants, namely, Jai Ram, Sri Ram, Sant Ram, Ram Bachan, Shiv Pujan and Lal Bahadur for decision on merit. 6. Prosecution story, as emerges out from the record, is that on 17th March, 1980 Ram Lautan, son of Dubari, gave a written complaint (Exhibit Ka-1) at 19.45 hours, alleging therein that accused Jai Ram etc. 6. Prosecution story, as emerges out from the record, is that on 17th March, 1980 Ram Lautan, son of Dubari, gave a written complaint (Exhibit Ka-1) at 19.45 hours, alleging therein that accused Jai Ram etc. had assaulted his family members and in respect of which a case under Section 107/117 was going on; on the date of incident i.e. 17th March, 1980, at the time of sunset, when his brother Jiyalal was going home from his well with bullocks, his elder brother Harilal was also going to the house of one Ram Milan to give back his one bullock; he and his father (deceased), Dubari were going back home from their field and were some paces behind; when Jiyalal (deceased) reached near cattle house of Phoolchand and Harilal (deceased) reached near house of Triloki; accused Jai Ram, Sri Ram, Sant Ram, Ram Bachan, Ram Karan, Sita Ram, Ram Nawal, Shiv Pujan, Lal Bahadur, Vedeshi, Badri, Bans Raj and Ram Jas came out of the cattle house of Phoolchand; accused Jai Ram, Sri Ram, Sant Ram, Ram Bachan and Ram Karan had spear, accused Sita Ram and Ram Newal had axe, accused Shiv Pujan had knife and other accused had Lathis in their hands; accused Jai Ram instigated the other accused to murder them on which Jai Ram, Sri Ram, Sita Ram, Shiv Pujan, Lal Bahadur and Bans Raj assaulted Jiyalal with Lathis; when he fell down on the ground, accused Shiv Pujan struck a knife blow on him; other accused started assaulting Harilal near house of Triloki at the distance of 25 paces from the place where Jiyalal was murdered; his father rushed in order to save Harilal, but accused had murdered him as well; witnessing the assault on his two brothers and father, he was crying and raising alarm on which Ram Milan, Rajendar and others reached at the place of incident; and females of his house, Karama, Badama and Boota had also rushed to the place of incident where Smt. Lakshmina, Smt. Phekna, Smt. Jaldhari, Bhanmati and Shyamkali met with these females and assaulted them. 7. On the basis of the written complaint (Exhibit Ka-1) first information report (hereinafter referred to as ''F.I.R.') (Exhibit Ka-3 ''A') was registered at Case Crime No. 46 of 1980, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 304 and 302 I.P.C. against accused. 8. 7. On the basis of the written complaint (Exhibit Ka-1) first information report (hereinafter referred to as ''F.I.R.') (Exhibit Ka-3 ''A') was registered at Case Crime No. 46 of 1980, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 304 and 302 I.P.C. against accused. 8. Jagdish Narain Pathak, Sub-Inspector, who was S.O. of Police Station, Sammanpur undertook the investigation; he went to the place of incident at about 9.00 p.m.; he took statement of complaint and inspected the dead-bodies of Dubari, Harilal and Jiyalal and it being night and there was no sufficient arrangement for light, therefore, inquest report could not be prepared on the same day and he decided to prepare the inquest report on the next day; he took the blood-stained and plain earth from the place of incident where three persons were murdered and prepared memos; he arrested the females, who were accused of the assaulting the ladies of the house of the complainant; and thereafter, arrested the accused Ram Nawal and Shi Ram from Kanpur. 9. It appears that the other accused surrendered themselves in the Court and the investigating officer, Jagdish Narain Pathak before he could submit the charge-sheet was transferred. However, he had already completed the investigation with respect to most of the aspects of the crime. 10. Cadavers of Jiyalal, Harilal and Dubari were sent for postmortem examination and Dr. S.K. Agnihotri conducted postmortem examination on 18th March, 1980. The following antemortem injuries were fond on the cadaver of the deceased Harilal: 1. contusion 8cm x 6cm on the middle of right side face, transverse & oblique with fracture of maxilla bone into multiple places; 2. incised wound 8cm x 1cm x bone deep on right side head 10cm above the ear, transverse oblique; 3. Incised wound 6cm x 1cm x bone deep on middled of head, 4cm medial to injury no. 2 vertically oblique; 4. incised wound 4cm x 1cm x bone deep on right side head, 6cm above the ear vertically; 5. incised wound 2cm x 1cm on the back of head 6cm from injury no. 4 transverse; 6. incised wound 1cm x 1cm x bone deep on the left side head, vertically oblique 2 cm below injury no. 3 vertically, oblique. 7. lacerated wound 4cm x 1cm x bone deep on the left side mandible with fracture of mandible; 8. incised wound 2cm x 1cm on the back of head 6cm from injury no. 4 transverse; 6. incised wound 1cm x 1cm x bone deep on the left side head, vertically oblique 2 cm below injury no. 3 vertically, oblique. 7. lacerated wound 4cm x 1cm x bone deep on the left side mandible with fracture of mandible; 8. contusion 16cm x 2 cm on the chest starting from right side to middle of left side of chest transverse oblique, 4cm below the right nipple; 9. lacerated wound 4cm x 1 cm x bone deep 6cm below the left knee on left leg with compound fracture of tibia and fibula; 10. lacerated wound 6cm x 10cm x bone deep on lower third left leg, 6cm above the ankle joint with fracture of tibia and fibula bones; 11. punctured wound 4cm x 2cm x 4cm deep on the middle of right leg 1cm x 1cm below the knee joint with fracture of tibia and fibula; 12. contusion 10cm x 2cm on the left side back 2cm below the injury of scapula transverse oblique; 13. contusion 6cm x 2 cm on the middle of back 3 cm below the injury no. 12, transversely oblique; 14. contusion 2cm x 2 cm on the right side back 3 cm below the injury; 15. contusion 10cm x 2cm on the back 6cm above the waistline; and 16. abrasion 6cm x 3cm on the right scapular region. He had received multiple fracture on right parietal temporal occipital bone. Clotted blood was found in an area of 15cm x 6cm on temporal, parietal and occipital bone. In the opinion of the Doctor, death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries. 11. The following antemortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased Dubari: 1. incised wound 3cm x 1cm xx bone deep on the lateral aspect of left eyebrow; 2. punctured wound 2cm x 2 cm x 3.5cm deep on the lateral aspect of left arm vertically oblique 6 cm back to the shoulder joint, vertically oblique; 3. punctured wound 3cm x 2cm x 3.5 cm deep on the lateral aspect of left arm 4 cm back and parallel to injury no. 2; 4. punctured wound 4cm x 2cm x 4cm deep anteriorly upward on the back of left forearm, below the ankle joint; 5. punctured wound 3cm x 2cm x 3.5 cm deep on the lateral aspect of left arm 4 cm back and parallel to injury no. 2; 4. punctured wound 4cm x 2cm x 4cm deep anteriorly upward on the back of left forearm, below the ankle joint; 5. punctured wound 3cm x 2cm x 3cm deep anteriorly upward on the back of left forearm 6cm below and parallel to injury no. 4; 6. incised wound 12cm x 2cm on the anterior medial aspect of left thigh above the knee joint vertically oblique; 7. incised wound 5cm x 2cm x bone deep on the middle of the left leg,10cm below the knee joint vertically oblique; 8. incised wound 8cm x 3cm x bone deep on the back third of left leg, 4cm above left ankle joint; 9. contusion 6cm x 2cm on the front of right knee, transverse obliquely; 10. contusion 12cm x 2cm on the right side chest, 5cm below the nipple transverse oblique; and 11. abrasion 10cm x 3cm on the medial aspect of right forearm 6cm below the elbow joint. He had also died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries found on his body. 12. Antemortem injuries found on the body of Jiyalal were as under:- 1. contusion 6cm x 2cm on right side forehead above the eyebrow transversely and obliquely; 2. incised wound 4cm x 1cm x bone deep on right head, 8cm above the ear transversely oblique; 3. incised wound 2cm x 1cm x bone deep on right side head 2cm behind the injury no. 2 transverse oblique. Brain matters prolapsing out. 4. incised wound 6cm x 1cm x skull cavity deep on right side back of head, 3cm behind the injury no. 3. Brain matters prolapsing out. 5. punctured wound 6cm x 2cm x skull deep on the back of head 2 cm below the injury no. 4. Brain matters prolapsing out; 6. incised wound 4cm x 1cm x bone deep on the right side back of head 6cm behind the ear. 7. incised wound 6cm x 1cm x bone deep on the left side head, 2cm behind the ear. 8. lacerated wound 4cm x 1cm x whole breadth of ear. 9. contusion 8cm x 2cm on the lateral aspect of right arm, on the middle of the arm with the fracture of the undergoing bone; 10. 7. incised wound 6cm x 1cm x bone deep on the left side head, 2cm behind the ear. 8. lacerated wound 4cm x 1cm x whole breadth of ear. 9. contusion 8cm x 2cm on the lateral aspect of right arm, on the middle of the arm with the fracture of the undergoing bone; 10. lacerated wound 2cm x 1cm x bone deep 6cm below the knee joint; 11. lacerated wound 3cm x 1cm x bone deep 2cm above the ankle joint; 12. incised wound 6cm x 1cm deep on the knee; and 13. abrasion 8cm x 3cm on the medial side of the thigh. 13. Smt. Gangajali, Smt. Sampati, Smt. Boota Dei, Smt. Karma and Smt. Badama were also medically examined on 18th March, 1980 by Dr. L.L. Chaudhari. 14. In the opinion of the Doctor, Gangajali had got no visible injuries. She was complaining pain over left scapular region and left hip area. Smt. Sampati had also got no external injury. Smt. Boota Dei had got two contusions and one abrasion and Smt. Karma had got three abrasions and one traumatic swelling. Smt. Badama had got one stab wound, one traumatic swelling and two contusions. 15. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of Session on 11th September, 1980. 16. The charges were proved and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 17. There is no dispute that Ram Lautan, Harilal and Jiyalal were the sons of Dubari and they were living together. Smt. Gangajali was the widow of Harilal and Smt. Sampati was the widow of Jiyalal. Smt. Karma was the widow of cousin of Ram Lautan and Smt. Boota Dei was the daughter of Smt. Karma. 18. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined the following witnesses:- Ram Lautan PW-1, Rajendra PW-2, Jagdish PW-3, Dr. S.K. Srivastava PW-4, Narendra Dev Yadav PW-5, Ram Dev Prasad PW-6, and S.I. S.K. Agnihotri PW-7. 19. Complainant, Ram Lautan, PW-1 whose two brothers and father were killed in the incident, in his evidence said that on 17th March, 1980, half an hour before the sunset after watering the field, his brother Jiyalal was coming towards home with bullocks and behind him, he and his father Dubari were coming. 19. Complainant, Ram Lautan, PW-1 whose two brothers and father were killed in the incident, in his evidence said that on 17th March, 1980, half an hour before the sunset after watering the field, his brother Jiyalal was coming towards home with bullocks and behind him, he and his father Dubari were coming. When Jiyalal reached near the cattle house of Phoolchand, accused Jai Ram, Sri Ram, Sita Ram, Shiv Pujan, Lal Bahadur and Vansh came out of cattle house of Phoolchand and gave him Lathi blows and when he fell down on the ground, accused Shiv Pujan struck a knife blow on him. At the same time, Harilal was also going to give back one bullock to Ram Milan and he also reached near the cattle house of Phoolchand. Other accused, who had spear, Axe and Lathies started assaulting Harilal near the house of Triloki at the distance of 25 paces from the place where Jiyalal was murdered. He had said that his father rushed in order to save Harilal, but accused had murdered him as well. He reiterated the allegations of the F.I.R. He proved the complaint (Exhibit Ka-1). He had further said that he reached the police station at 7.45 p.m. and gave the written report to the Head Moharir. The police station is one and half miles away from the village and he was given the copy of the F.I.R. After the F.I.R. got registered, the investigating officer enquired about the incident and asked him to go back to the place of incident. When he reached at the place of incident, he found that witnesses had brought the dead-body of Jiyalal to the place where dead-bodies of Harilal and Dubari were lying. He further said that when he came back from the police station then the ladies of his house told him that after he left to the police station the wife of Ram Newal asked the other accused to teach the ladies also a lesson and thereafter, some accused assaulted the widow of Harilal and Jiyalal. He further said that when he came back from the police station then the ladies of his house told him that after he left to the police station the wife of Ram Newal asked the other accused to teach the ladies also a lesson and thereafter, some accused assaulted the widow of Harilal and Jiyalal. He said that the investigating officer came to his village around 8:30-8:45 p.m. but he did not remember as to whether the investigating officer stayed during night in the village or not; he saw the investigating officer at around 12:00 night; he denied the suggestion that the investigating officer did not come in the night nor did he conduct any proceeding, but on the next day he conducted the inquest (Panchayatnama) at 10:00 a.m.; he sent cadavers of three deceased for postmortem after sealing them; his statement was recorded immediately after investigating officer came at the place of incident; he denied the suggestion that was not present in the village at the time of occurrence, he also denied that his brothers and father were killed in the night and nobody saw the persons who murdered his two brothers and father. 20. Pw-2, Rajendra, son of Kapit Sahu fully corroborated the statement of PW-1. He had said that the incident had happened on 17th March, 1980 half an hour before the sunset; he was present in his house and when he heard alarm and cry, he came out of the house and went towards the house of Ram Milan and found Ram Milan and Bhagauti Deen was sitting at the house of Ram Milan; and from there he, Ram Milan and Bhagauti Deen went towards the cattle house of Phoolchand and found PW-1, Ram Lautan, crying and raising alarm. He had reiterated the incident in the manner PW-1 had stated. This witness is also an eyewitness and had remained firm on his testimony, described the incident in the manner described by the PW-1. There are no material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-2 is the resident of the same village and an independent and natural witness. 21. Pw-3, Jagdish Narain Pathak, who conducted the initial investigation, had proved the documents prepared by him, including the inquest reports and site-plan etc. and others documents. There are no material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-2 is the resident of the same village and an independent and natural witness. 21. Pw-3, Jagdish Narain Pathak, who conducted the initial investigation, had proved the documents prepared by him, including the inquest reports and site-plan etc. and others documents. In his cross-examination, he had said that he did not take the statement of the complainant, PW-1 at the police station; there had been three deaths in his family and, therefore, the complainant was sent to the place of incident immediately after lodging the F.I.R.; when he reached the place of incident, he took the statement of the PW-1 on that day; G.D. of 17th March, 1980 and 18th March, 1980 were received in the office of Circle Officer on 26th March, 1980; he denied the suggestion that no report was lodged on 17th March, 1980 nor did he go in the night to the place of incident on 17th March, 1980; he reiterated that on 17th March, 1980 he took the statement of the complainant only; papers of 17th, 18th, and 19th March, 1980 were sent to the Circle Officer on 21st March, 1980; he denied the suggestion that after the incident, the F.I.R. was registered in consultation with the complainant; he denied the suggestion that the incident did not occur in the night of 17th March, 1980; in the Chik report sent with the inquest (Panchayatnama) case crime number, sections, date and time of report were not written; three copies of the Chik report sent with the dead-bodies (7A/14, 7A/21 and 7A/29); on F.I.R. there are signatures of Circle Officer and date was 11th April, 1980; on 18th March, 1980 the Pairokar of the police station did not forward the F.I.R. to the Circle Officer. 22. Pw-4, Dr. S.K. Srivastava, Radiologist proved the X-ray report etc. of the injured ladies. PW-5, Narendra Dev Yadav, Pharmacist, State Dispensary, Sikandarpur, District Faizabad proved the injury report of Smt. Gangajali, who was examined on 18th March, 1980 at 9:53 a.m. by Dr. L.M. Chaudhari, who was later on transferred from there. He said that he recognized Chaudhari's writing and signature; he was present when Smt. Gangajali was examined by Dr. L.M. Chaudhari for her injuries; he proved the injury report which was in the hand-writing and signatures of Dr. L.M. Chaudhari, who was later on transferred from there. He said that he recognized Chaudhari's writing and signature; he was present when Smt. Gangajali was examined by Dr. L.M. Chaudhari for her injuries; he proved the injury report which was in the hand-writing and signatures of Dr. L.M. Chaudhari; he proved the injury reports of Sampti, Boota Dei, Karma and Badama; and these injured ladies were brought by Constable Ganga Singh and he identified them. PW-6, Ram Dev Pandey, who was posted at the police station as Station Officer after transfer of earlier Station Officer J.N. Pathak, proved the charge-sheet. 23. Pw-7, S.K. Agnihotari, who conducted the postmortem on the cadavers of Harilal, Jiyalal and Dubari, proved the postmortem reports. Postmortems were conducted on 18th March from 1:30 to 4:30 p.m. According to this witness, deaths could have been caused on 17th March, 1980 between 5:30 to 6:00 p.m. He had further said that it was possible that the deceased would have died immediately after receiving the antemortem injuries. 24. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence and on consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the defence as well as prosecution, the learned trial Court had passed the impugned judgment and order convicting the appellants along with others and sentencing them accordingly. 25. Heard Mr. Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Ms. Madhulika Yadav, learned Additional Government Advocate and Shri M.P. Yadav, Advocate appearing for the respondents. We have also gone through the lower court record. 26. On behalf of the appellants it has been submitted that the F.I.R. was not registered at the time as mentioned on 17th March, 1980, but it was lodged on 18th March, 1980 after inquest (Panchayatnama) proceedings were conducted and dead-bodies sent for postmortem examination. It has been further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged in consultation with PW-1 and, therefore, if the report, which is the foundation of the prosecution case, is a fabricated document, the whole prosecution case gets collapsed. It has been further submitted that the PW-1 was not present in the village and after he came to the village on the next day, the complaint was written at the village itself and thereafter, the entries were made in the General Diary. It has been further submitted that the PW-1 was not present in the village and after he came to the village on the next day, the complaint was written at the village itself and thereafter, the entries were made in the General Diary. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the investigating officer in his cross-examination had admitted that the copy of the Chik report was sent along with the dead-bodies for postmortem examination, but there was no mentioning of case crime number, sections and time of lodging of the F.I.R. He has further submitted that from looking at the papers i.e. 7A/14, 7A/21 and 7A/29 it is clear that they are copies of the complaint. He has further submitted that in the three inquests (Panchayatnamas), it is mentioned that the investigating officer started the inquest (Panchayatnama) at 9:00 p.m. on 17th March, 1980. He said that it was not possible to start inquest of three dead-bodies at the same time and thereafter, he concluded the inquest on the next day. He has further submitted that the injured ladies were not examined and the best evidence was withheld by the prosecution, therefore, it casts shadow of doubt upon the prosecution story. It was the duty of the prosecution to produce the best evidence inasmuch as according to the prosecution as many as three ladies had received injuries at the time of incident. Non-examination of the injured witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case and in view of the aforesaid facts the prosecution story becomes suspicious, therefore, the Court needs to look at the evidence and scrutinize the same with much detail. He has further submitted that if the F.I.R. itself was not in existence when the inquest reports were prepared and dead-bodies were sent for postmortem examination, the whole edifice of the prosecution story gets tumbled down and the appellants are liable to be acquitted. 27. Ms. Madhilika Yadav, Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the testimony of the two witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2, is fully credible, unimpeachable and reliable. They are natural witnesses of the incident inasmuch as PW-1 is the brother of the two deceased Jiyalal and Harilal and son of deceased-Dubari. PW-2 was fully aware of the incident that happened in the village before sunset. They are natural witnesses of the incident inasmuch as PW-1 is the brother of the two deceased Jiyalal and Harilal and son of deceased-Dubari. PW-2 was fully aware of the incident that happened in the village before sunset. Nothing has come in their cross-examination to discredit these witnesses or which could raise any doubt about their presence at the place and time of incident and witnessing the occurrence. She has further submitted that the suggestion given by the defence that PW-1 was not present at the place of incident on 17th March, 1980 was denied by him and the defence did not bring any evidence to prove that PW-1 was not present at the place and time of incident and, therefore, when the suggestion was denied and there was no contrary evidence to disprove his presence at the time and place of incident, the suggestion cannot be accepted. She has further submitted that there is no force in the submission that the complaint was written after the inquests were prepared on the next day. She has further submitted that non-writing of the case crime number, sections and time on the copy of Chik report, which were copies of the complaint, would not be fatal and mere this omission would not cast shadow of doubt that the F.I.R. was a fabricated document and, therefore, the whole prosecution story gets falsified. She has further submitted that from the record, it is clear that a separate letter was written by the investigating officer for postmortem examination on three cadavers and in these letters case crime number and sections etc. were specifically mentioned. She has further submitted that mere omission on the part of the investigating officer would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution if it is otherwise proved by the evidence led by the prosecution. She has further submitted that in the present case when the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, credible and reliable evidence of eye-witnesses, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 28. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the evidence and record of the case. 29. 28. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the evidence and record of the case. 29. We need to consider that whether non-mentioning of the case crime number and sections on the copies of the Chik report which were sent with the dead-bodies would be fatal to the prosecution case and can it be said that the F.I.R. was a fabricated document or it was prepared on the next day, after completion of the inquest proceeding of the three dead-bodies. It is clear that in the inquest proceedings, case crime number and sections etc. were clearly mentioned. It is the specific case of the investigating officer that there was omission of mentioning the case crime number and time etc. on the copy of the Chik report and the copy of the Chik F.I.R. was nothing but copy of the complaint sent along with each dead-bodies, did not have the case crime number, date and sections etc, but the letters sent along with the dead-bodies for postmortem had all the details of F.I.R. such as case crime number and sections etc. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants is that the copies of the Chik F.I.R. sent along with the dead-bodies having no case crime number, date and time etc. was clear proof to indicate that the complaint was written after the inquest proceedings were over and the F.I.R. did not come into existence at the time and date as mentioned in the F.I.R. and, therefore, it was ante-timed. 30. We do not find any substance in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants. The inquest report is prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C. It has been long settled by the Supreme Court through several judgments that inquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence. The purpose of preparing the inquest report is merely to ascertain prima facie the cause of death. 31. The Supreme Court in Yogesh Singh Versus Mahabeer Singh and others, (2017) 11 SCC 195 has dealt with the purpose of preparing the inquest report and the consequence of non-recording of certain relevant entries in the inquest report. The purpose of preparing the inquest report is merely to ascertain prima facie the cause of death. 31. The Supreme Court in Yogesh Singh Versus Mahabeer Singh and others, (2017) 11 SCC 195 has dealt with the purpose of preparing the inquest report and the consequence of non-recording of certain relevant entries in the inquest report. The Supreme Court has specifically held that non-recording of certain relevant entries in the inquest report would not constitute a material defect to discard the prosecution case if otherwise reliable testimony of prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case. Paragraphs 41 and 42 of Yogesh Singh Versus Mahabeer Singh and others are extracted herein below:- "41. Further, the evidentiary value of the inquest report prepared under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. has also been long settled through a series of judicial pronouncements of this Court. It is well-established that inquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be looked into for testing the veracity of the witnesses of inquest. The object of preparing such report is merely to ascertain the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or caused by animals or machinery etc. and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument, the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. 42. In the present case, it is not the case of the accused that they have been prejudiced by the alleged delay in dispatch of the FIR to the nearest Magistrate competent to take cognizance of such offence. Moreover, in our opinion, the non-recording of certain relevant entries in the inquest report do not constitute a material defect so grave to throw out the prosecution story and the otherwise reliable testimonies of prosecution witnesses that have mostly remained uncontroverted." 32. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Brahm Swaroop and another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 6 SCC 288 wherein it has been held that the basic purpose of preparing an inquest report is to investigate into and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery etc. The inquest report cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence, but it may be utilized for contradicting the witnesses of inquest. The inquest report cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence, but it may be utilized for contradicting the witnesses of inquest. Paragraphs 9, 10 and 12 of Brahm Swaroop and another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh are extracted herein below:- "9. The whole purpose of preparing an inquest report under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') is to investigate into and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds as may be found on the body of the deceased and stating as in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument such wounds appear to have been inflicted. For the purpose of holding the inquest it is neither necessary nor obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to investigate into or ascertain who were the persons responsible for the death. The object of the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.PC is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and, if so, what was its apparent cause. The question regarding the details of how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of such proceedings i.e. the inquest report is not the statement of any person wherein all the names of the persons accused must be mentioned. 10. Omissions in the inquest report are not sufficient to put the prosecution out of court. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery etc. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report. Evidence of eyewitnesses can not be discarded if their names do not figure in the inquest report prepared at the earliest point of time. The inquest report cannot be treated as substantive evidence but may be utilised for contradicting the witnesses of inquest. 12. Evidence of eyewitnesses can not be discarded if their names do not figure in the inquest report prepared at the earliest point of time. The inquest report cannot be treated as substantive evidence but may be utilised for contradicting the witnesses of inquest. 12. Even where the attention of the author of the inquest is drawn to the alleged discrepancy, overwriting, omission or contradiction in the inquest report and the author in his deposition has also admitted that through a mistake he omitted to mention the crime number in the inquest report, this Court has held that just because the author of the report had not been diligent did not mean that reliable and clinching evidence adduced by the eyewitnesses should be discarded by the Court." 33. On the question of delay in sending report to the Jurisdictional Magistrate and its impact on the prosecution case the Supreme Court in Balram Singh and another Versus State of Punjab, (2003) 11 SCC 286 has held that if the credit worthiness of the ocular evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution is worthy of acceptance, the delay in registering a complaint or sending the same to the Jurisdictional Magistrate by itself would not in any manner weaken the prosecution case. Paragraph 10 of Balram Singh Versus State of Punjab is extracted herein below:- "10....we notice that in reality there is no delay in preparing the FIR but there was some delay in transmitting the said information to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Having been satisfied with the fact that the FIR in question was registered in the morning of 6-5-1990, we do not think that the delay thereafter in communicating it to the Jurisdictional Magistrate on the facts of this case, has really given any room to doubt that the said document (FIR) was created after much deliberations. At any rate, while considering the complaint of the appellants in regard to the delay in the FIR reaching the jurisdictional Magistrate, we will have to also bear in mind the creditworthiness of the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution and if we find that such ocular evidence is worthy of acceptance, the element of delay in registering a complaint or sending the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate by itself would not in any manner weaken the prosecution case." 34. Thus, it is clear that the procedural defects can be ignored if the Court finds the ocular testimony of the witnesses reliable and unimpeachable. The prosecution case cannot be discarded on the ground of these technical defects. The Supreme Court in Brahm Swaroop and another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh has taken note of its several earlier judgments wherein delay in sending FIR to the Jurisdictional Magistrate and its impact on the prosecution case have been considered. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of Brahm Swaroop and another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh are extracted herein below:- "18. In Aqeel Ahmad this Court held that the forwarding of the report to the Magistrate is indispensable and absolute and it must be sent at the earliest, promptly and without any undue delay as the purpose is to avoid the possibility of improvement in the prosecution's case and the introduction of a distorted version by deliberations and consultation and to enable Magistrate concerned to keep a watch on progress of investigation. However, no rule of universal application can be laid down that whenever there is some delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, the prosecution version becomes unreliable. It would depend upon the facts of each case. If there has been some lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer that would not affect the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses. 19. In State of Kerala v. Anilachandran this Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments in Pala Singh v. State of Punjab and Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab and held that the police should not unnecessarily delay sending the FIR to the Magistrate as the delay affords the opportunity to introduce improvement and embellishment thereby resulting in a distorted version of the occurrence. However, in case the prosecution offers a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the court has to test it. An unexplained delay by itself may not be fatal, but it is certainly a relevant aspect which can be taken note of while considering the role of the accused persons for the offence. A similar view has been reiterated in Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre V. State of Maharashtra." 35. The Supreme Court in Anjan Dasgupta Versus State of West Bengal and others, 2017 11 SCC 222 in paragraph-24 has held:- "24. A similar view has been reiterated in Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre V. State of Maharashtra." 35. The Supreme Court in Anjan Dasgupta Versus State of West Bengal and others, 2017 11 SCC 222 in paragraph-24 has held:- "24. The present is the case, where recording of the FIR on 16th June, 2000 itself has been proved, accepted by the trial court also, thus mere dispatch of the FIR on 22nd June, 2000 from the police station to the Magistrates' Court has no bearing on the basis of which any adverse presumption can be drawn. From the above discussion, we are of the clear view that the FIR was genuine FIR and trial court committed an error in drawing adverse inference against the prosecution and refusing to attach value to the FIR." 36. From the evidence of investigating officer, PW-3 it is evident that no question was put to him regarding delay in sending the FIR to the Jurisdictional Magistrate and, thus, no explanation was required to be furnished by him on this issue. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution had not been asked to explain the delay in sending the special report. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the FIR was ante-timed cannot be accepted in view of the evidence available on record which goes to show that the FIR of the incident had been lodged promptly and names of all the accused had been mentioned in it. The prompt lodging of the FIR is proved from the Chik report and the statement of the complaint recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Any defect in preparation of the inquest report by the investigating officer or non-mentioning of the case crime number and sections etc. in the copy of the Chik report sent with each dead-bodies cannot lead to an inference that the FIR was not registered at the alleged date and time. FIR contains all the essential features of the prosecution case, including the names of the eye-witnesses, time, place of incident, names of victim, motive of the accused, weapons in the hands of the accused and manner of assault. 37. Thus, all the said aspects not only give credence to the presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of incident, but also participation of the accused-appellants in the crime. 37. Thus, all the said aspects not only give credence to the presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of incident, but also participation of the accused-appellants in the crime. It is also true that some defective or flawed investigation itself would not be sufficient to throw out the prosecution case if it is otherwise proved by the testimony of the credible and reliable ocular witnesses. 38. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Versus Mir Mohammad Omar and others, (2000) 8 SCC 382 in paragraph 41 has held: "41. Learned Judges of the Division Bench did not make any reference to any particular omission or lacuna in the investigation. Castigation of investigation unfortunately seems to be a regular practice when the trial courts acquit the accused in criminal cases. In our perception it is almost impossible to come across a single case wherein the investigation was conducted completely flawless or absolutely foolproof. The function of the criminal courts should not be wasted in picking out the lapses in investigation and by expressing unsavoury criticism against investigating officers. If offenders are acquitted only on account of flaws or defects in investigation, the cause of criminal justice becomes the victim. Effort should be made by courts to see that criminal justice is salvaged despite such defects in investigation. Courts should bear in mind the time constraints of the police officers in the present system, ill-equipped machinery they have to cope with, and the traditional apathy of respectable persons to come forward for giving evidence in criminal cases which are realities the police force have to confront with while conducting investigation in almost every case. Before an investigating officer is imputed with castigating remarks the courts should not overlook the fact that usually such an officer is not heard in respect of such remarks made against them. In our view the court need make such deprecatory remarks only when it is absolutely necessary in a particular case, and that too by keeping in mind the broad realities indicated above." 39. The submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellants that non-examination of injured ladies was a material defect in the prosecution case as the prosecution had withheld its best evidence to prove the case, therefore, adverse inference should be drawn to discredit the prosecution case. The submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellants that non-examination of injured ladies was a material defect in the prosecution case as the prosecution had withheld its best evidence to prove the case, therefore, adverse inference should be drawn to discredit the prosecution case. The accused-appellants were not charged for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. Only lady accused were charged with the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. Since injured ladies did not enter the witness box, the lady accused were acquitted by the trial Court. 40. Non-Examination of the injured ladies cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case where the ocular testimony of the witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2, is trustworthy, credible, reliable and unimpeachable. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that non-examination of the injured ladies to prove the prosecution case was fatal. The prosecution case is proved by the ocular testimony of the PW-1 and PW-2 and it got corroborated by the medical evidence. All aspects of the prosecution case got proved in the present case. 41. We do not find any substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that it was impossible to start inquest of all three dead-bodies at 9:00 p.m. on 17.03.1980. There is no cross-examination of the investigating officer with respect to start of the inquest proceeding on 17th March, 1980 at 9:00 a.m. It was for the accused-appellants to have put a question to the investigating officer that how did he start the inquest proceeding at the same time with respect to three dead-bodies on 17th March, 1980. When no explanation has been called for from the investigating officer by the defence, the defence cannot take advantage of this fact inasmuch as question was put to the investigating officer to give him an opportunity to explain the said fact before him. We also do not agree with the submissions made on behalf of the appellants that PW-1 was not present in the village at the time of incident on 17th March, 1980 and he came to the village on the next day. There was only a suggestion put to PW-1, which he denied, but the defence did not lead any evidence to prove that he was not present in the village on 17th March, 1980 at the time of incident. There was only a suggestion put to PW-1, which he denied, but the defence did not lead any evidence to prove that he was not present in the village on 17th March, 1980 at the time of incident. When the suggestion was denied, it was for the defence to lead evidence to show that the presence of PW-1 was not possible on 17th March, 1980 at the time of incident. One more submission which has been argued to doubt the prosecution story is that the F.I.R. was received by the Circle Officer on 11th April, 1980. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the statutory obligation is that the F.I.R. should be sent within twenty-four hours to the Circle Officer. He has said that this circumstance also cast doubt. We do not find any force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. The defence did not ask any question to the investigating officer on this point. Further, when the prosecution story is wholly proved by the ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and their evidence is found to be credible, reliable and trustworthy, the prosecution case can not be thrown out merely on the ground that the FIR was not forwarded to the Circle Officer within 24 hours. 42. We, after considering the evidence on record and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate, do not find any merit in the appeal and the appeal is, thus, dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is affirmed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken in custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. 43. Let the copy of this judgment be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for compliance along with lower court record forthwith.