JUDGMENT : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. 1. Both the aforesaid appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.07.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg, in Session Case No. 80/2012 (FIR No. 309/2012), whereby, co-accused Smt. Bulbul has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC while accused-appellants namely Ronu and Govind have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and both were acquitted of the offence under Section 120-B IPC. 2. Since both the appeals arise from one and the same impugned judgment dated 26.07.2013, therefore, both were heard together and are being decided vide this common judgment. 3. The brief and relevant facts giving rise to these appeals are that PW-1 Dalchand submitted a written report (Exhibit-P-1) before S.H.O. Police Station-Kaman, District Bharatpur stating therein that on 18.05.2012 at about 11:00 a.m. when he was coming to Kaman from his native village Nandola, Ishaq (PW-9) met him and informed him that dead body of a woman had been thrown by someone, after committing her murder, in a half burnt condition near Chain No. 881 of K.P. Drain. 4. On the said report, FIR No. 309/2012 was registered at Police Station Kaman, District Bharatpur for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC (Exhibit-P-25) and investigation commenced. 5. Charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellants and Smt. Bulbul wife of Govind on 28.09.2012 for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaman. 6. From the perusal of charge-sheet, it reveals that case against juvenile Lalu was also made out for the aforesaid offences, therefore, separate charge-sheet was proposed/filed against juvenile Lalu before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur. 7. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, therefore, learned Magistrate after complying with the provisions enshrined in Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg under Section 209 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"). 8. After hearing on charge, charges were framed against the accused-appellants and co-accused Bulbul for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC, for which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 9. 8. After hearing on charge, charges were framed against the accused-appellants and co-accused Bulbul for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC, for which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 9. To prove the charges against the accused-appellants, prosecution examined nineteen witnesses and also proved as many as twenty nine documents. Thereafter, accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein accused-appellant Govind denied the incriminating prosecution evidence put to him and stated that he has no relation with co-accused Ronu, neither he knew Ronu or his wife. He had been implicated falsely in this case. 10. Accused-appellant Ronu also claimed that incriminating prosecution evidence was wrong and stated that on 16th July or June, he was discharged from the Government Hospital and the alleged incident took place on 17th at 4:30 p.m. Wife of Govind named Bulbul told him that Shashi (deceased) and Govind are running away somewhere and she did not know where they were. They called his tempo and he (Ronu) along with Bulbul boarded the same. When they reached at Kaman Canal, they found that his wife, Govind and one boy Lalu were already present there. They gave him beatings and tied his upper and lower limbs and also put a cloth in his mouth and Sonu pointed a weapon on his head. Bulbul pulled back his wife's hair and gave her beatings. Govind inflicted danda blow to his wife and threw stones at her. Govind, Sonu Jat and Lalu committed murder of his wife in front of his eyes. Thereafter, by putting grained sugar and ghee on the body of his wife, they set it on fire. He was brought to their house by Govind, Sonu and Lalu and threatened that he would also be killed if he would tell about the incident to anyone. Thereafter, he got a chance to run away from that place. Police took him away and kept him for 25 days and demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- to make him an eye witness. Since he was not having the money and Sonu made the payment, therefore, Sonu was made a witness. 11. In defence, no witness was examined by the accused-appellants. Only six documents i.e. Exhibit-D-1 to Exhibit-D-6 were proved by the appellants. Police took him away and kept him for 25 days and demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- to make him an eye witness. Since he was not having the money and Sonu made the payment, therefore, Sonu was made a witness. 11. In defence, no witness was examined by the accused-appellants. Only six documents i.e. Exhibit-D-1 to Exhibit-D-6 were proved by the appellants. After hearing, learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused Smt. Bulbul from the charges framed against her but convicted the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and acquitted them of the charge under section 120-B IPC and sentenced as under:- Under Section 302 IPC Life term imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in case of default in payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 201 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in case of default in payment of fine, to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. 12. Mr. Kapil Gupta and Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submitted that from the perusal of report (Exhibit-P-1), it revealed that police was informed on 18.05.2012 about the incident and consequently reached on the spot on the even date at 11:30 a.m. but FIR was registered on 19.05.2012. While as per statement of complainant-PW-1-Dalchand and PW-9 Ishaq, police was informed on 18.05.2012 at 11:00 a.m. and reached on spot at 11:30 a.m. on the even date but no report was registered by the police. They further submitted that the dead body was also shifted to Government Hospital mortuary on 18.05.2012 but the seizure memo of articles of deceased-Shashi Exhibit-P-2, dead body inspection memo Exhibit-P-3 were prepared wrongly showing the date as 19.05.2012. 13. Mr. Kapil Gupta learned counsel submitted that appellant-Ronu was falsely implicated in this matter and his wife was murdered by co-accused, which was witnessed by him. Since police demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- from him and the same could not paid by him to police, therefore, he was implicated falsely in this case. 14. He submitted that eye witness PW-13 Sonu was introduced by the police after two months from the date of recovery of the dead body and during these two months he did not disclose the factum of murder, which creates statement of PW-13 doubtful. 15. 14. He submitted that eye witness PW-13 Sonu was introduced by the police after two months from the date of recovery of the dead body and during these two months he did not disclose the factum of murder, which creates statement of PW-13 doubtful. 15. He further submitted that the true facts were narrated by him during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but learned trial Court wrongly convicted and punished him. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed. 16. Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat learned counsel submits that appellant-Govind neither knows co-accused Ronu nor his wife Shashi. He was implicated falsely in this matter. He further submitted that it was alleged that appellant-Govind was having illicit relations with the deceased and the allegation is not correct. Assuming this allegation is correct, still, in that case also there was no motive to commit the murder of deceased by appellant Govind. It is urged that without considering all these facts, learned trial Court wrongly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, therefore, these appeals may be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence may be quashed and the accused-appellants may be acquitted. 17. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Javed Choudhary supported the impugned judgment and submitted that PW-13 Sonu was given beatings by the accused persons and threatened that if he would disclose anything about the incident, he would also be murdered, therefore, he did not disclose the facts of the incident. He submitted that merely because statement of PW-13 Sonu was recorded after delay, was no ground to disbelieve his statement, as otherwise he is a reliable witness. He submitted that learned trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, therefore, these appeals may be dismissed. 18. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record carefully. 19. The perusal of the record, reveals that complainant-PW-1 Dalchand proved written report Exhibit-P-1, seizure memo of slippers, empty ghee container, empty kerosene bottle, matchbox and wooden pieces Exhibit-P-2. He also proved dead body appearance memo Exhibit-P-3, inquest report Exhibit-P-4, site plan Exhibit-P-5 and another site plan which was prepared at instance of accused-appellant Ronu Exhibit-P-6. 20. PW-2 Pooran and PW-5 Bhanwar Singh also proved Exhibit-P-2 recovery memo of slippers, empty ghee container, empty kerosene bottle, three blood stained wooden pieces, one purse, burnt piece of paper, currency notes, matchbox and stones. 20. PW-2 Pooran and PW-5 Bhanwar Singh also proved Exhibit-P-2 recovery memo of slippers, empty ghee container, empty kerosene bottle, three blood stained wooden pieces, one purse, burnt piece of paper, currency notes, matchbox and stones. He also proved dead body appearance memo Exhibit-P-3, inquest report Exhibit-P-4, site plan Exhibit-P-5 and another site plan which was prepared at the instance of accused-appellant Ronu Exhibit-P-6. 21. PW-3 Madan Singh and PW-4 Constable, Matol Singh proved arrest memo of accused-appellant Ronu Exhibit-P-7 and arrest memo of accused-appellant Govind Exhibit-P-8. PW-4 also proved arrest memo of co-accused Bulbul Exhibit-P-9. 22. PW-6 Neeraj Sharma, Contractor turned hostile and stated that he does not know Lalu, Govind, Ronu and Sonu. He denied his police statement Exhibit-P-10. 23. PW-7 Rakesh Sharma in his statement stated that he is a practicing lawyer in Mathura Court. On 01.05.2008 Ronu came to him with his wife Shashi and stated that Shashi is resident of Morena with whom he performed love marriage and father of Shashi was harassing them. Therefore, police security may be provided to them and proceedings for police security may be initiated. An application was filed before Senior Superintendent of Police, City Mathura, who issued order to Police Station Vrindavan to provide required security. Thereafter, on 14.05.2012 at about 10:00 a.m. Shashi came to his chamber and told him that Ronu gave her beatings and he might murder her. On which, he made a telephonic call to Ronu from Shashi's mobile. After an hour Ronu reached there. On asking Shashi told that Ronu was driving tempo of Govind Seth and he was having illicit relations with his wife named Bulbul, therefore, Ronu wanted to commit her murder. He further stated that he made Ronu understand to keep his wife happy and after making them understand, sent them home. Both went happily. Thereafter, in evening about 7:00 p.m. after reaching home, Ronu gave beatings to his wife and she was produced before the Superintendent of Police. She was called on next day at 10:00 a.m. but instead of 10:00 a.m. she reached at 8:00 a.m. in the Court. After attending some cases when he reached in his Chamber, he saw that Ronu was giving beatings to Shashi and he intervened. During intervention, Ronu sustained injuries on his head with the corner of bench. Thereafter, he used abusive language towards him. After attending some cases when he reached in his Chamber, he saw that Ronu was giving beatings to Shashi and he intervened. During intervention, Ronu sustained injuries on his head with the corner of bench. Thereafter, he used abusive language towards him. Ronu left for Civil Line Police Chowki and lodged report against him and his clerk. Police got admitted Ronu in the hospital and also inquired from him. On the next day, as per instructions of Shashi (since deceased) he prepared an application to the effect that Ronu, Govind and Bulbul could murder her, therefore, proceedings may be initiated against them. The said application (Exhibit-P-11) was submitted before Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura. On 16.05.2012, Sonu and Govind came in his Chamber and asked that they had come to talk with regard to compromise of dispute of Ronu. He tried for that after calling the other parties but failed to succeed. However, Govind wrote down on paper (Exhibit-P-12) that he will not continue the service of Ronu as a driver on his tempo. On 18.05.2012 when he made a telephonic call to Shashi, it was reported as switched off. When, he made a telephonic call to Ronu, it was also reported as switched off. When he called Govind and asked that why the mobile phones of Ronu and Shashi were switched off, Govind informed him that Shashi had been murdered and her dead body was found in a half burnt condition at K.P. Drain near Kaman. He further deposed that Govind informed him that a letter (Exhibit-P-12) was written by him, which was recovered by the police and police approached him (Govind) and he identified the dead body. This witness further stated that as Shashi told him earlier about apprehension of murder, it seems that Govind, Ronu and Bulbul had committed murder of Shashi. He identified the photos of deceased-Shashi Exhibit-P-13 to Exhibit-P-16 and Exhibit-P-17. He also identified accused Ronu. 24. PW-8 Rajendra Prasad in his statement stated that Ronu and Shashi were residing in his house as tenant and he noticed their hot talks in regard to illicit relations of Ronu with wife of tempo owner named Bulbul. 25. PW-9 Ishaq is the person who had initially seen the dead body and informed the former Sarpanch Dalchand about it. He also identified the photographs of the dead body Exhibit-P-13 to Exhibit-P-16. 26. 25. PW-9 Ishaq is the person who had initially seen the dead body and informed the former Sarpanch Dalchand about it. He also identified the photographs of the dead body Exhibit-P-13 to Exhibit-P-16. 26. PW-10 Govind Singh proved recovery memo of tempo bearing No. UP 85-AD-9198 Exhibit-P-18. 27. PW-11 Dr. Pooran Mal Meena and PW-15 Dr. Pramod Bansal in their statements stated that postmortem of deceased Shashi aged 23 years was conducted by the Medical Board and they were also the member of the Medical Board along with Dr. Amar Singh Saini. They further stated that rigor mortis was present, head hair of deceased, armpit hair and pubic hair were burnt and smell of kerosene was present as lacerated wound was there in size of 6 x 2 x 1 c.m. on his head. A pink colour dupatta was there around her throat. The whole body was burnt by kerosene. The cause of death of deceased Shashi was strangulation and burn injuries. 28. PW-12 Sadhvi Radharani whose statement was recorded on 05.04.2013, stated that about a year before her statement, Govind along with a woman and a child came to her hermitage and stayed there. 29. PW-13 Sonu is an eye witness and in his statement he stated that about a year before the incident, Govind gave him key of his tempo. He drove with Ronu, wife of Govind and one child Lalu and reached Barsana. On his asking Ronu told him that they wanted to go to Kamawali Canal. When they were on the way, Ronu requested to stop the tempo for urination and when he stopped the tempo, Govind and one lady came on a motorcycle and stopped near tempo. With the help of photographs (Exhibit-P-13 to Exhibit-P-17), he identified the lady who was there with Lalu and stated that she was the same lady whose photographs were shown to him. Thereafter, the lady who was there on the bike and Ronu started abusing each other. Ronu picked up a danda which was lying under the seat and inflicted injury on the head of that lady. Thereafter, that lady tried to catch the lady who was sitting in the tempo and asked her that why she was destroying her home. Thereafter, Govind picked up a stone and threw it on the head of that lady. Due to this she fell down. Thereafter, that lady tried to catch the lady who was sitting in the tempo and asked her that why she was destroying her home. Thereafter, Govind picked up a stone and threw it on the head of that lady. Due to this she fell down. After that Lalu, Ronu and Govind pulled her in the canal and strangulated with the help of her dupatta, which was pulled by Lalu and Ronu. Govind gave kick blows on her chest. When they felt that she had died, they put grained sugar, kerosene and ghee on her and burnt her body. At that time, he was sitting in the tempo. Lalu threatened him that he should remain seated otherwise he will suffer consequences. This witness duly identified Govind and Ronu. 30. PW-14 Mukesh Meena proved seizure memo of motorcycle Exhibit-P-20. 31. PW-16 Ashok Aanjana is the Investigating Officer of this case who deposed regarding the investigation. He proved Exhibit-P-21, seizure memo of Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No. HR 51-Q 1720 Exhibit-P-20, statement of Sonu recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Exhibit-P-22, copy of report submitted by Ronu at Police Station Sadar Bajar, Mathura Exhibit-P-23. He stated that after investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the present appellants with Bulbul and also submitted charge-sheet against juvenile Lalu before Juvenile Justice Board. 32. PW-17 Devi Singh, Malkhana In-charge stated that Investigating Officer deposited a sealed packet marked as 'A' on 10.06.2012, three wheeler tempo and a motorcycle for which he made entries in Malkhana register at Serial No. 111. He proved copy of Malkhana register Exhibit-P 24A. 33. PW-18 Ramprasad in his statement stated that on 19.05.2012 when he was posted as SHO, Kaman, at that time PW-1 Dalchand submitted a written report (Exhibit-P-1) before him. On its basis, FIR No. 309/2012 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was registered. He proved FIR (Exhibit-P-25). He further stated that he reached at the place of occurrence where he found half burnt dead body and inspected the place of occurrence and whatever articles were found, were seized. On its basis, FIR No. 309/2012 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was registered. He proved FIR (Exhibit-P-25). He further stated that he reached at the place of occurrence where he found half burnt dead body and inspected the place of occurrence and whatever articles were found, were seized. He proved a pair of ladies slippers as Article No. 1, Article No. 2 empty ghee container, Article No. 3 empty kerosene bottle, Article No. 4 half burnt pink colour dupatta, one ladies purse in burnt condition with half burnt currency notes also Article No. 5 a half burnt letter vide Exhibit-P-12 and wooden pieces and stone and one match stick as Article No. 6 were also recovered. He also proved dead body inspection memo (Exhibit-P-3). He stated that Sonu came at CHC, Kaman and identified deceased Shashi, wife of his younger brother Ronu. He also proved inquest report Exhibit-P-4, photographs Exhibit-P-13 to Exhibit-P-17, postmortem report Exhibit-P-19 and also proved site plan. 34. PW-19 Ratan Lal is another Investigating Officer who proved arrest memos of accused Ronu, Govind as Exhibit-P-7 and Exhibit-P-8. He also proved arrest memo of Bulbul (Exhibit-P-9). He stated that all the three accused disclosed to him that they could identify the place of occurrence, which was recorded as Exhibit-P-26 to Exhibit-P-28. In pursuance to their information, site plan of place of incident (Exhibit-P-6) was prepared. On 10.06.2012 accused-appellant Govind furnished information that he could get recovered the tempo which was used during the occurrence. He proved that information as Exhibit-P-29. 35. From the perusal of aforesaid statements of witnesses, specially from the statement of PW-7 Advocate Rakesh, it reveals that accused-appellant Ronu was working as tempo driver on the tempo of accused-appellant Govind and was having illicit relations with the wife of Govind named Bulbul. Due to it, there was dispute between Ronu and his wife Shashi (deceased). In this regard, Shashi came to Advocate Rakesh (PW-7) for legal assistance. PW-7 Rakesh tried to resolve that dispute but they even started quarreling in his Chamber also and when he intervened, Ronu fell down and sustained injuries on his head from the corner of bench. Shashi was having apprehension that Ronu and Bulbul may kill her, therefore, with the help of PW-7 Rakesh, she submitted an application Exhibit-P-11 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura on 15.05.2012 soon before the incident. Shashi was having apprehension that Ronu and Bulbul may kill her, therefore, with the help of PW-7 Rakesh, she submitted an application Exhibit-P-11 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura on 15.05.2012 soon before the incident. Govind also wrote a letter Exhibit-P-12, which was recovered from the purse of deceased Shashi whereby he agreed that he will not remain in relation with Ronu and his wife (deceased). On the day of incident, PW-13 Sonu, at the instance of Ronu went to co-accused Govind where Govind gave him the key of his tempo. PW-13 Sonu along with accused-appellant Ronu, wife of Govind-Bulbul with Lalu went to the place of occurrence in the tempo, where Ronu stopped the tempo for urination. When the tempo was stopped, Govind and one lady came on a bike and they also stopped near the tempo. The lady who came on motorcycle was Shashi and she started abusing Bulbul who was sitting in the tempo. Due to this, accused-appellant Ronu gave beatings to Shashi and accused-appellant Govind also gave beatings to Shashi. At that time with the common intention Govind, Ronu and Lalu tried to kill Shashi by way of strangulation. After pouring grained sugar, ghee and kerosene, they tried to burn the body of deceased, which fact is corroborated from the statements of PW-11 Dr. Pooran Mal Meena and PW-15 Dr. Pramod Bansal. Therefore, it is proved that accused-appellants with common intention committed murder of Shashi and at that time Sonu was there in the tempo on the seat of driver and had witnessed the incident. It is true that police statement of Sonu was recorded about two months later but his presence is not doubtful as accused-appellant Ronu in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted his presence at the place of incident. Further, during cross-examination of Sonu, no suggestion was put to him that he was not present on the spot. 36. From the prosecution evidence, it is also evident that at the time of occurrence, accused-appellant Govind gave key of tempo to Sonu and he drove the said tempo in which Ronu, Lalu and Bulbul were sitting. Therefore, the presence of eye witness Sonu at the place of incident cannot be doubted. 37. 36. From the prosecution evidence, it is also evident that at the time of occurrence, accused-appellant Govind gave key of tempo to Sonu and he drove the said tempo in which Ronu, Lalu and Bulbul were sitting. Therefore, the presence of eye witness Sonu at the place of incident cannot be doubted. 37. So far as motive is concerned, from the statement of PW-7 Advocate Rakesh, it is clear that deceased was under the impression that Ronu was having illicit relations with Bulbul and she went to the spot with accused Govind and saw Ronu with Bulbul and started abusing Bulbul. Thereafter, Ronu, Govind and Lalu gave beatings to the deceased and strangulated her and burnt the body of the deceased with a view to destroy evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no motive with the appellants to commit the offence. Further, prosecution case rests on eye witness account, therefore, motive loses its significance. 38. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants submit that the incident took place at the spur of the moment and there was no pre-meditation, therefore, offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out. Suffice to say that deceased was unarmed and is a lady and accused persons not only gave beatings to her but after giving injuries by pieces of wood and stones also strangulated her. Therefore, it is apparent that they intended to kill her and were having knowledge that their act will be sufficient to kill her. Therefore, it can't be said that the case doesn't come within the purview of definition of murder as enshrined in Section 300 IPC. 39. It is true that as per written report (Exhibit-P-1), police was informed by the complainant on 18.05.2012 at 11:00 a.m. and police also reached at spot on the even date. Still police failed to register FIR on 18.05.2012. From the perusal of postmortem report, it is revealed that it was prepared on 19.05.2012 and complainant-PW-1 Dalchand also submitted written report on 19.05.2012. 40. From the perusal of written report (Exhibit-P-1), it is revealed that in police proceedings there is difference of ink/pen in date and time which shows that there is negligence to some extent on police part. From the perusal of postmortem report, it is revealed that it was prepared on 19.05.2012 and complainant-PW-1 Dalchand also submitted written report on 19.05.2012. 40. From the perusal of written report (Exhibit-P-1), it is revealed that in police proceedings there is difference of ink/pen in date and time which shows that there is negligence to some extent on police part. In this regard the statement of PW-1 Dalchand corroborates the statement of PW-9 Ishaq, which reveals that police had reached on the spot on 18.05.2012 and shifted the dead body to postmortem room. PW-18 Ramprasad, denied this fact and deposed that he has received information in this regard on 18.05.2012. The act of negligence on the part of police, in the facts of the present case, is not fatal to the prosecution story. From the aforesaid facts, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved in the light of other material available on record, which has already been discussed. 41. Accordingly, learned trial Court after considering the entire evidence, rightly convicted the accused-appellants and sentenced as aforesaid, which does not require any interference. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. 42. A copy of this order be placed in the connected file.