JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Pankaj Naqvi, J) This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.3.1984, passed by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T No.296/1982 (State vs. Basdeo and another), convicting/sentencing the appellants under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC to 2 years R.I and imprisonment for life respectively. 2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that P.W.-1 along with his brother (deceased), were carrying carrots on a cycle, on way to Mandi on 9.1.1982, at about 8 AM, when they reached near the fields of one Moti Ram, appellants and one Babu Lal along with 4 unknown accused persons surfaced from roadside bushes, Babu Lal assaulted his brother Jawahar with kulhadi (axe). P.W.-1 and his brother tried to escape, but the cycle fell down, whereupon Rajveer, Basdeo and Babu Lal caught hold of Jawahar, inflicted him with several knife wounds. P.W.-1, who was 20 steps from the scene of assault, shouted for help, whereupon Shaitan Singh (P.W.-4), Megh Singh (not-examined) and Satendra (P.W.-3) arrived, but the accused managed good their escape. P.W-1 after ascertaining the death of his brother, left the scene, to inform his mother and other co-villagers, who subsequently arrived at the scene. P.W.-1 then went to inform his brother Udai Singh (P.W.-2) at Gambhirpur where he was working in Metro Lock Company who was narrated the entire occurrence at about 11.30 AM, who called upon him to inform his Bhabhi, wife of the deceased at her native village. P.W.-2 proceeded to the scene (3-4 kms), saw the dead body of his brother, obtained a piece of paper, scribed a written report (Ext. Ka-1) at 13.15 hrs at P.S. Civil Lines, Aligarh on which an FIR (Ext. Ka-1) as Case Crime No.33 was lodged, against the appellants and one Babu Lal. The report assigned a motive that in the year 1980 Rishi Pal, brother of the accused Babu Lal and uncle of accused Rajveer was murdered in which his brother/P.W.-1 and he himself were arraigned as accused, deceased was a pairokar in which they were finally acquitted which had created animosity between the two factions. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the appellants and Babu Lal on 22.3.1982. Charges were framed against them under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC and case committed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the appellants and Babu Lal on 22.3.1982. Charges were framed against them under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC and case committed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To bring home the charges, prosecution examined P.W.-1/an eye-witness (brother of the deceased), P.W.-2 also a brother of the deceased and an informant, P.W.'s-3 & 4 as eye-witnesses, P.W.-5, the I.O who carried out all investigational formalities, culminating in the filing of the charge-sheet. P.W.-6 is the Constable who accompanied the Investigating Officer to the scene wherein he sealed the dead body and brought the same to mortuary for autopsy. The defence claimed false implication and examined D.W.-1 to establish alibi of Basdeo. 5. During pendency of the trial, Babu Lal died, trial abated against him. 6. The trial court after considering the evidence on record, convicted/sentenced the appellants as above. 7. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ram Babu Sharma, for the appellants and Sri A.N. Mulla, the learned A.G.A. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants broadly raised the following submissions: (i) The FIR has been lodged after inordinate delay of 5 hours, reasons assigned for delay are highly improbable. (ii) The conduct of witnesses of fact is unnatural/improbable as none of them were responding/acting in a prudent manner. (iii) P.W's-3 & 4 are chance witnesses on whom no reliance can be placed. 9. Sri Mulla, the learned A.G.A controverted the submissions on the ground that delay in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained, conduct/response of witnesses, cannot be said to be unnatural/improbable, presence of P.W.-3 & 4 is natural, it's a case where prosecution has proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt, appeal is sans merit, liable to be dismissed. The first 2 issues are intertwined, same are being dealt with together: The incident is alleged to have occurred on 9.1.1982 at around 8.15 AM while P.W.-1/Brij Mohan was going on a cycle along with the deceased (Jawahar), whereupon the accused persons surfaced from the bushes to assault his brother with an axe and knives. The first 2 issues are intertwined, same are being dealt with together: The incident is alleged to have occurred on 9.1.1982 at around 8.15 AM while P.W.-1/Brij Mohan was going on a cycle along with the deceased (Jawahar), whereupon the accused persons surfaced from the bushes to assault his brother with an axe and knives. P.W.-2 has given a graphic description as to the sequence of his movement from the scene to his house at a distance of 1-1.5 kms so as to inform his mother and other co-villagers, then he brought all of them to the scene and left them at the scene to inform his brother, Udai Singh (P.W.-2), a worker at the Metro Lock Company at Gambhirpur, Aligarh at a distance of 3-4 kms. P.W.-2 is informed by P.W.-1 of the murder of his brother at about 11.30 AM, he calls upon P.W.-1 to first inform Bhabhi, i.e., the wife of the deceased at her native village. P.W.-2 then proceeds to the scene (3-4 kms) after seeing body of the deceased, scribes a report (Ext. Ka-1) which is lodged as an FIR (Ext. Ka-11) at P.S. Civil Lines (3-4 kms) on the same day at about 13.15 hrs. 10. In the entire sequence, we do not find any unnatural and improbable conduct/response of P.W.-1 who in the first instance, informs his near and dear ones, i.e, his mother and other co-villagers, then his elder brother, who was to take a final call. Merely because P.W.-1 was an accused in another case, cannot be expected that he was well aware of the legal formalities and should have himself lodged the FIR at the 1st opportunity. He is the youngest in the family. He is only expected to inform the elders and given the life existing in the rural scenario, he being the youngest, cannot be expected to author a report. 11. We on above evidence, find that the delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained. 12. The conduct and response of a witness is not to be examined as if we are sitting on an arm-chair and then expecting a witness to act in one manner or the other. A witness does not have the time to judge and evaluate the pros and cons of his response. 12. The conduct and response of a witness is not to be examined as if we are sitting on an arm-chair and then expecting a witness to act in one manner or the other. A witness does not have the time to judge and evaluate the pros and cons of his response. To examine the conduct and behavioural response of a witness in posteriority would be entering in a speculative zone which the courts are forbidden. 13. To substantiate the above view, reference may be made to a recent decent decision of the Apex Court in Tehseen Poonawala vs. Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No.19/2018, decided on 19.4.2018. We cannot resist from extracting the following part of the judgment : "To attribute motives to his colleagues who were with him and took immediate steps to shift him to a hospital nearby is absurd, if not motivated. In hindsight, it is easy to criticise actions which are taken by human beings when faced with an emergency. It is easy for an observer sitting in an arm-chair at a distant point in time to assert that wisdom lay in an alternate course of action. That can never be the test for judging human behaviour." 14. Merely because P.W.-2 came across 2 reporting police chowkis, but did not lodge the FIR or informed the police chowki concerned, is no reason to doubt the veracity of his testimony as there was nothing unnatural/improbable on his part to first see the dead body and then to proceed to lodge the FIR. CHANCE WITNESS P.W.-3 is a colleague of P.W.-2/Udai Singh as he also works at Metro Lock Company, Aligarh. He was present at the scene at the time of occurrence as he was on his way to take a holy dip at Ganges (35 km) on account of Poornima on cycle, when he came across cries for help raised by P.W.-1. P.W.-4 Shaitan Singh also claims to be an eye-witness as village Qayampur happens to be his maternal grand mother's native village and he too was going for a holy dip along with Megh Singh (not examined). 15. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants challenged the presence of P.W.'s- 3 & 4 at the scene on the ground that they are chance witnesses, their testimonies are liable to be rejected. 16. 15. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants challenged the presence of P.W.'s- 3 & 4 at the scene on the ground that they are chance witnesses, their testimonies are liable to be rejected. 16. We find it useful to quote the following paragraphs of Sachchey Lal Tiwari vs. State of U.P., (2004) 11 SCC 410 , wherein the following observations were made by the Apex Court relating to chance witnesses. "Coming to the plea of the accused that PW-2 was 'chance witness' who has not explained how he happened to be at the alleged place of occurrence it has to be noted that the said witness was independent witness. There was not even a suggestion to the witness that he had any animosity towards any of the accused. In a murder trial by describing an independent witness as 'chance witness' it cannot be implied thereby that his evidence is suspicious and his presence at the scene doubtful. Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their presence. The courts below have scanned the evidence of PW-2 in great detail and found it to be reliable. We find no reason to differ. The defence has not suggested any previous animosity of the alleged chance witness with the accused persons. P.W.-3 denied that he was deposing as he was a colleague of P.W.-2. Both the above witnesses were subjected to intense cross-examination, wherein P.W.-3 saw the occurrence from a distance of about 100 yards and P.W.-4 from 10-15 steps. The occurrence took place at about 8.15 AM. P.W.'s- 3 & 4 are aware as to the identities of assailants. No suggestion was made that the assailants were not familiar with the witnesses. Both the above witnesses were subjected to intense cross-examination, wherein P.W.-3 saw the occurrence from a distance of about 100 yards and P.W.-4 from 10-15 steps. The occurrence took place at about 8.15 AM. P.W.'s- 3 & 4 are aware as to the identities of assailants. No suggestion was made that the assailants were not familiar with the witnesses. A rural folk can identify a person either by body contours or voice even in darkness. Merely because P.W.-3 saw the assailants from 100 yards, is no good ground to disbelieve his testimony. P.W.-4 saw the occurrence from 10-15 steps. The presence of these witnesses who are on a cycle on way to take a dip at the Ganges on Poornima is a matter of faith and to question why did they not opt for speedier mode of transport, would be questioning their faith. It is not uncommon, more in a rural scenario that people would prefer to undergo sufferings on religious detour. They believe that more the penance, greater is the salvation which is nothing but their unabiding faith. Merely because these witnesses stayed back for 2 days after the dip, at the cost of their wages, could not be a good ground to discredit their testimonies. We do not find any impropriety on the part of the trial court in placing reliance on the testimony of witnesses of fact. The autopsy of the deceased (Ext. Ka-13) was not challenged by the defence which indicated the presence of following ante mortem injuries: "1. Five incised wounds size varying from 1½" x ½" x cavity deep to 2" to ½" x cavity deep on the lower part of chest in an area of 4" X 2½". All these wounds are parallel to each other. 2. Incised wound 2 ½" x ¾" x cavity deep left side hypochondrium region. 3. Incised wound (irregular) 4½"x 3" x cavity deep on the right hypochondrium region, right lower chest 8th and 9th ribs cut lacerated lower part visible. 4. Incised wound 1" x ½" x cavity deep on the right lumber region. 5. Incised wound 1" x ½" x cavity deep on the right lumber region, 1" from umblicus at 10 O'clock. 6. Two incised wounds 1½" x ½" x cavity deep on the right lumber region; 2½" apart from each other. 7. 4. Incised wound 1" x ½" x cavity deep on the right lumber region. 5. Incised wound 1" x ½" x cavity deep on the right lumber region, 1" from umblicus at 10 O'clock. 6. Two incised wounds 1½" x ½" x cavity deep on the right lumber region; 2½" apart from each other. 7. Two incised wounds ½" x 2/10" x muscle deep on the right iliac region. 8. Incised wound 1½" x ¾" x cavity deep on the right ingnial region. Loop of intestine coming out. 9. Incised wound 1 ½ " x ¾ " x cavity deep on the left side chest lower part, 1 ½ " below nipple at 6 O'clock. 10. Incised wound 1 ½ " x 2/10" x muscle deep left forearm. 11. Incised wound 1 ½ " x 2/10" x muscle deep left forearm (post) medial. 12. Multiple incised wounds (small) ½ " x 2/10" to ¾ " x 2/10" on the left hand and finger. 13. Incised wound 1 ½ " x ½ " x muscle deep on the right elbow and upper part. 14. Incised wound 1 ½ " x ½ " x muscle deep on the left forearm, upper part. 15. Incised wound 1" x ½ "x muscle deep on the middle of forearm. 16. Two incised wounds ½ " x ½ " x 2/10" x skin deep on the right elbow. All the above injuries, in the form of incised wounds are compatible with the occular account involving the use of kulhadi and knives. P.W.-5, the I.O prepared the inquest (Ext.Ka-3) at the scene, wherein he also recovered a cycle and a sack laden with carrots (Ext. Ka-2)." 17. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants in all fairness conceded that in view of the quality of evidence of D.W.-1, he is unable to press the alibi of Basudeo. 18. No other plea was urged. 19. We are of the view that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 20. The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail stands cancelled. They shall forthwith surrender before the court concerned to serve out the remainder sentence. 21. Office is directed to forthwith communicate this order to the court concerned.