JUDGMENT P.N.Deshmukh, J. - This appeal takes exception to the Judgment dated 31.10.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Case No.75 of 2016 whereby the appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 4 r/w. 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 3. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution can be putforth as under : On 25.4.2016, PW-1 Mangesh Ajabrao Gaikwad, the Complainant visited the pan shop of deceased Avinash Meshram at about 10.45 p.m. and after having tobacco mixture, was present at the pan shop at some distance. At that time, the deceased came to the pan shop from his house. While appellant Pradip Madhukar Nandeshwar was sitting on the heap of metal at some distance from the pan shop. When the deceased came in front of said heap, the appellant all of a sudden opened assault on the person of deceased by knife, due to which he fell down and ran away from the spot after dropping the knife on the spot. Due to assault, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and was, thus, taken to Government hospital, Yavatmal in an auto-rickshaw by the villagers. However, he was declared dead on admission. 4. On the basis of report (Exh.18) lodged by PW-1 Mangesh, offence came to be registered vide Crime No.274 of 2016 by Yavatmal City Police Station and was investigated by PW-6 Vinod Mungsaji Zalke, A.P.I., the Investigating Officer who visited the spot and drew Spot panchanama and also seized incriminating articles including knife from the spot under Seizure panchanama. He further drew the Inquest panchanama (Exh.28) and seized clothes of deceased which were on his person at the time of incident under Seizure Panchanama (Exh.20). After recording statements, the appellant came to be arrested on 28.4.2016 under Panchanama (Exh.43). The appellant, on 29.4.2016, on interrogation, confessed to discover his clothes concealed by him in one nala. He further drew the Inquest panchanama (Exh.28) and seized clothes of deceased which were on his person at the time of incident under Seizure Panchanama (Exh.20). After recording statements, the appellant came to be arrested on 28.4.2016 under Panchanama (Exh.43). The appellant, on 29.4.2016, on interrogation, confessed to discover his clothes concealed by him in one nala. Memorandum Statement of appellant is proved (Exh.23) and Discovery panchanama of the clothes is proved (Exh.24). After collecting Post Mortem Report (Exh.37) along with weapon knife, the Investigating Officer sent requisition to Medical Officer, of which reports are on record (Exh. Nos. 39 and 41). 5. During the course of investigation, since it revealed that the appellant, by washing the clothes, had tried to destroy the evidence, letter (Exh.47) was issued to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal for adding offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in the present crime. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, by entering into correspondence with the Office of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., obtained letter to establish that, on the day of incident, electric supply to the pole situated on the spot was on. Similarly, letter (Exh.56) was also issued to the Local Municipal Council to inform if electric supply was on at the site of incident. The seized muddemal property was forwarded to the Chemical Analyser, of which C.A. reports are on record (Exh. Nos. 52 to 55). On completion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed against the appellant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, which, in turn, came to be committed to the Court of Session. Charge is framed against the appellant vide Exh.9 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 r/w. 25 of the Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To establish the charge levelled against the appellant, prosecution in all examined six witnesses and had commenced it''s evidence on examining PW-1 Mangesh Gaikwad, the Complainant, PW-2 Kamalkishor Sharma, witness on memorandum and Discovery panchanama (Exh.23 and 24 respectively), PW-3 Anup Bhagat, panch on Spot, Inquest and Seizure Panchanama of articles, PW-4 Sunita w/o. Deceased Avinash, PW-5 Dr.Sharad Kuchewar, who had conducted post mortem and has proved Post Mortem report (Exh.37), and concluded its evidence on examining PW-6 Vinod Zalke, A.P.I., the Investigating Officer. 7. 7. Learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and documents on record, convicted the appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 8. Heard Mr.Abdul Subhan, learned Counsel for the appellant, who, from the available evidence on record, has mainly stressed on the points as delay in lodging the F.I.R., noncompliance of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, non-examination of independent witnesses, non-availability of reliable evidence on the point of source of light at the spot and lastly, on non-investigation in respect of some unknown stout boy who was alleged to be present with the appellant at the time of incident and has contended that, in the absence of sufficient reliable evidence on record the above aspects, prosecution cannot said to have established that the charge levelled against the appellant are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Counsel has, thus, prayed that the appeal be allowed. 9. In support of the above submissions, the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following cases : 1. Meharaj Singh (L/NK.) vs. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188 . 2. Puran Singh .vs. State of Punjab, (1995) AIRSCW 2651 . 3. Narayana Reddy @ Babu .vs. State of Karnataka, (2016) 14 SCC 212 . 10. Ms T.H.Udeshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/State, on the other hand, supported the impugned Judgment and prayed for dismissal of appeal contending that there is ample evidence against the appellant establishing his involvement in the crime as, from the eye witnesses'' account which is corroborated by ample other evidence on record, the charge levelled against the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 11. In the background of case of prosecution and the submissions advanced as aforesaid, perusal of evidence of PW-1 Mangesh would reveal that, at the time of incident, he happened to be present at the spot, situated near the pan shop of deceased since he had visited the same for having tobacco. It has come in his evidence that, when he was thereafter sitting on the heap of metal near the pan stall, the deceased arrived there from his house when the accused, all of a sudden, arrived on the spot and opened assault on him by knife and went away after dropping knife on the spot. It has come in his evidence that, when he was thereafter sitting on the heap of metal near the pan stall, the deceased arrived there from his house when the accused, all of a sudden, arrived on the spot and opened assault on him by knife and went away after dropping knife on the spot. Apart from presence of others on the spot, PW-Mangesh claims presence of PW-4 Sunita w/o. deceased Avinash on the spot at the time of incident. 12. He has further stated about referring of deceased to Government hospital where he was declared dead on admission and about his lodging report (Exh.18). 13. It has also come in his evidence that, on 14.4.2016 i.e. 9-10 days prior to the incident, the appellant had assaulted Nikhil son of deceased during the procession of Ambedkar Jayanti and therefore, Nikhil along with his cousin Shubham, had assaulted the appellant prior to incident and thus, to take revenge of assault on him, the appellant has assaulted the deceased. 14. On considering the cross-examination of PW-1 Mangesh, it is noted that his version on the point of assault goes unshattered and he has, in fact, denied the suggestion put to him that he had not seen the appellant from close distance in the entire incident. Though it is admitted by PW-Mangesh that one Stout boy was present at the time of incident, it is specifically denied that said stout boy had assaulted the deceased nor from his evidence any overt act is attributed to such boy. As such, it cannot be held that the appellant is, in no way, concerned with the present assault. In fact, in view of specific evidence of eye witness PW-Mahesh on the point of assault, such stray admission of presence of one stout boy on the spot with the appellant by no stretch of imagination creates doubt on the case of prosecution of assault on deceased by the appellant. Moreover, it is admitted by the Investigating Officer that, on inquiry with the Complainant, he was informed that no such stout boy was involved in the instant crime. In the circumstances, the submissions advanced to the effect that no investigation is carried out on these lines also does not stand for any reason. 15. Moreover, it is admitted by the Investigating Officer that, on inquiry with the Complainant, he was informed that no such stout boy was involved in the instant crime. In the circumstances, the submissions advanced to the effect that no investigation is carried out on these lines also does not stand for any reason. 15. In fact, evidence of PW-1 Mangesh is found materially corroborated by the evidence of PW-4 Sunita, the eye witness to the incident, when she deposed that, on the day of incident on 25.4.2016, after 10.00 p.m. her deceased husband went to the pan shop after dinner saying that he would return back after closing his shop. While she was standing in the courtyard of their house, at around 10.45 p.m., she heard shouts of her husband saying "Melo re" and therefore, immediately rushed to the spot and found the appellant committing assault on the deceased on his person by knife. On her raising shouts, other villagers gathered when the appellant, after dropping the knife, ran away from the spot. Evidence of PW-Sunita, as such, materially corroborates the version of PW-Mangesh about involving appellant in the crime as an assailant, whose evidence is found to be reliable and convincing to be acted upon as, even in her cross-examination, nothing is elicited to doubt her version. 16. Learned defence Counsel, to doubt presence of eye witnesses on the spot, has also stressed upon non-examination of independent witnesses and on no source of light to be available on the spot. However, the argument advanced on these submissions is not at all acceptable as, in the crossexamination, so far as the issue regarding availability of independent witness is concerned, in her cross-examination, PW-Sunita has deposed that there are no houses of other people surrounding the spot of incident. So far as source of light is concerned, she has specifically deposed that she could witness the incident in the source of light which was available on the electric pole on the road as well as in the source of light available in the nearby tin shed of Vinod Tembhurne. So far as source of light is concerned, she has specifically deposed that she could witness the incident in the source of light which was available on the electric pole on the road as well as in the source of light available in the nearby tin shed of Vinod Tembhurne. In fact, there is no challenge to said evidence of PW-Sunita about availability of light at the spot which fact is further established from the sketch drawn on Spot panchanama (Exh.26) and contents of these documents where there is specific reference of electric pole as well as existence of tin shed of Vinod, which aspect has been further substantiated by PW-6 Vinod Zalke who has deposed that, during the course of investigation, he has issued letter (Exh.48) to the Authorities of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. to ascertain if electric supply was on at the spot at the time of incident, of which report (Exh.49) is on record whereby it is certified that, on 25.4.2016, electric supply was available to the pole situated on the spot from 7 p.m. in the evening till 6.00 a.m. on the following day, while the incident took place at about 10.45 p.m. As such, this submission needs no consideration. 17. Similarly, though it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that, in the Spot panchanama (Exh.26), last three lines are subsequently added, which refers to source of light at the tin shed of Vinod Tembhurne, said submission do not find to be reasonable at all as, bare perusal of page no.3 of Spot panchanama, does not establish that such writing is subsequently done, but it is noted that, for want of space, last three lines are written in comparatively smaller font. 18. 18. So far as point of delay in lodging F.I.R. is concerned, same does not appear to be convincing at all as it has come in the evidence that the incident took place on 25.4.2016 at 10.45 p.m. of which report is lodged in the night intervening 25.4.2016 and 26.4.2016 at 3.17 a.m. It has come in the evidence of PWMangesh, the Complainant that, after incident of assault since the deceased was lying on the spot having sustained bleeding injuries, he was referred to Government Medical hospital at Yavatmal, where he was declared dead and thereafter, he visited Yavatmal City Police Station and lodged report at 3.15 a.m. As such, the F.I.R. lodged after lapse of about four hours cannot said to be delayed F.I.R. as, from the evidence of Complainant, the delay is found explained and Yavatmal City Police Station is found situated at a distance of about 2 kms. from the spot which is near Boudha Vihar at Panchasheel Square, Yavatmal. As such, the deceased was required to be shifted from this spot to Government Medical hospital at Yavatmal and after he was declared dead, the Complainant returned back to Police Station and lodged report. In that view of the matter, there is no substantial delay found to have occurred in lodging the F.I.R. 19. Similarly, though it is submitted that there is noncompliance of Section 157 of Code of Criminal Procedure, such argument cannot be considered for the reason that it is nowhere suggested to Investigating Officer that copy of F.I.R. was not forwarded to the Court of Magistrate in compliance of Section 157 of the Code. Though said provision mandates that the F.I.R. should be sent to the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours, in the appeal in hand, there is nothing brought on record nor even suggested to the I.O. that there is non-compliance of said provision. Having regard to the evidence on record and since there is nothing to doubt the eye witness''s account, prosecution is found to have established appellant''s involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Having regard to the evidence on record and since there is nothing to doubt the eye witness''s account, prosecution is found to have established appellant''s involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the ocular version of eye witness is further corroborated from the C.A. reports on record from which it is established that blood group of deceased is ''AB'' while that of accused is ''B'' and the stone seized from the spot, knife, towel and underwear of deceased are found stained with his own blood and full pant and shirt of appellant is also certified to be stained with human blood. Though there is no blood grouping in respect of blood found on the clothes of appellant, there is no explanation from appellant as to under what circumstances his clothes are having stains of human blood. 20. By now it is well settled that if there is no origin of blood group noted in the Chemical Analyser''s report and if human blood is found on the clothes of accused, it is for the accused to explain as to how such blood was found on his clothes. In the appeal in hand, appellant has not explained as to how clothes worn by him contained human blood. In his explanation under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, no explanation is forthcoming on this aspect. In fact, this is another circumstance which goes against the appellant. 21. Having considered the evidence and for the reasons as aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.