ORDER : Pankaj Naqvi, J. This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.10.1993, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, in S.T. No. 29/1993, convicting/sentencing the appellant under Sections 302 IPC for life. 1. The prosecution case is as under: (A) P.W.-1, the informant alleged that there is an ongoing previous enmity with accused Kaushal Kumar Upadhyay of his village as a case under Section 307 IPC was instituted by him in 1988 against him and his brother-Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay in which after conviction, they were enlarged on bail by this Court, on account of which on 18.11.1991 at around 5 in the evening while his son Amar Nath Lallan (victim) was returning after watering the fields near the house of Ramgati Teli, accused Kaushal Kumar Upadhyay armed with pharsa and his brother Rajesh Kumar with a knife exhorting each other, assaulted the victim with deadly weapons who collapsed. The incident is reported to have been witnessed by P.W.-1 and his accompanying grandson Umesh Chand (P.W.-2) along with other co-villagers but the accused managed to escape. The accused are reported to have strong criminal antecedents who had unleashed terror in the village. (B) On above allegations, an FIR came to be registered against the above named two accused as Case Crime No. 150/1991, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Sikeriganj, Gorakhpur on 18.11.1991 at 19.15 hrs. with P.S. at a distance of 2 miles. 2. Accused Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay died during pendency of trial. The trial court convicted the appellant as above. 3. We heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, the learned Amicus and Sri A.N. Mulla, the learned A.G.A. The learned Amicus raised the following arguments: (i) The precise mode and manner of assault was neither indicated in the FIR nor under ul Section 161 Cr.P.C., was disclosed for the first time in the court by P.W.'s-1 & 2. No stab/punctured wound was alleged by P.W.-2. The injuries are not compatible with the oral account as injuries on the head could not be caused by a pharsa as they are only muscle deep. (ii) Prosecution failed to explain injuries No. 5 & 6. (iii) There is a substantial difference between the distance of the police station as indicated in the FIR with that of the inquest, i.e., at the time of the inquest, the FIR had not seen the light of the day, it was ante-timed. (ii) Prosecution failed to explain injuries No. 5 & 6. (iii) There is a substantial difference between the distance of the police station as indicated in the FIR with that of the inquest, i.e., at the time of the inquest, the FIR had not seen the light of the day, it was ante-timed. (iv) The I.O. failed to give any date of despatch of the special report. (v) There is strong previous enmity between the parties as P.W.-1, a retired Head Moharrir, has two sons, serving in the police department unsuccessfully targetted the appellant in a prior case under Section 307 IPC. Thus, false implication cannot be ruled out. (vi) P.W.-1, the informant, neither disclosed the purpose of visiting the fields in the written report lodged by him nor under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said purpose was disclosed for the first time before the court which being a material improvement on a crucial aspect, dents his presence as an eye witness. (viii) P.W.'s-1 & 2 both admitted that the latter, a grandson of former was studying in Varanasi on the date of occurrence, thus, P.W.-2 could not be an eye-witness. 4. The learned A.G.A. countered the above submission by submitting that FIR is not expected to contain the minutest details of the occurrence as it is not an encyclopedia, prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that the purpose of the visit so as to enable P.W.-1 to be an eye-witness, was disclosed for the first time in the court or some minor injuries do not tally with the oral account or witnesses were inimical, as the prosecution has successfully established the broad contours of the case. 5. P.W.-1 (grandfather) and P.W.-2 (grandson) claim to be eye-witnesses, involving the assault on the son of P.W.-1, who had been out since 9 in the morning along with Ram Prasad, a cultivator to irrigate his fields, near the house of one Ram Pyare while they were on way to the fields, a furlong away from the house of P.W.-1, accused started assaulting the victim (son of P.W.-1) involving the use of pharsa and knife at the hands of accused Kaushal and Rajesh respectively. Considering the proximate distance between the house of P.W.-1 and the scene of occurrence, it was not unusual or unnatural for P.W.-1 to visit his fields as the victim had not returned. Considering the proximate distance between the house of P.W.-1 and the scene of occurrence, it was not unusual or unnatural for P.W.-1 to visit his fields as the victim had not returned. Thus, absence of the purpose to visit the fields, in the FIR itself cannot cast a doubt on the entire prosecution story. 6. P.W.-1 assigned the nature of weapons in the hands of two accused with which they assaulted the victim. Merely because the mode and manner of assault was not indicated in the FIR/161, cannot cast a doubt on the veracity of prosecution story as injuries caused to the victim, are attributable to the use of weapons assigned to the accused, which is also borne out from medical evidence as authenticated by P.W.-4/the doctor who conducted the autopsy of the deceased on 19.11.1991 at 4 PM with the following ante-mortem injuries: (i) Multiple incised wound in an area of 25 cm x 20 cm on the front side and back of vault of skull, each wound varying from 5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep to 6 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on various sites. (ii) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on the root of nose. (iii) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the middle of chin. There is fracture of the mandible bone on the middle part beneath this injury. (iv) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep, 2 cm. above injury No. 3. (v) Abrated contusion 8 cm x 6 cm on the back of the right shoulder. (vi) Abrated contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on the left side of the clavicle. 7. P.W.-4 confined the time of death of the victim on 18.11.1991 at 5 PM with a margin of half an hour on either side. He also confirmed that injury Nos. 1 to 4 were occasioned involving the use of pharsa and knife. The contention of defence that as prosecution failed to explain injury Nos. 5 & 6, dents the presence of witnesses, is liable to be rejected on more than one ground. Firstly, out of 6 injuries in all 4 (injury Nos. 1 to 4) were compatible with the oral account, whereas considering the nature of injury Nos. The contention of defence that as prosecution failed to explain injury Nos. 5 & 6, dents the presence of witnesses, is liable to be rejected on more than one ground. Firstly, out of 6 injuries in all 4 (injury Nos. 1 to 4) were compatible with the oral account, whereas considering the nature of injury Nos. 5 & 6, which are too trivial, absence of any explanation thereof would not per se impact the prosecution case. Secondly, injury Nos. 5 & 6 can also be attributed to fall or friction. 8. An ante-timed report, is a report which does not appear to have been lodged at a time when it is purported to have been lodged. It is well settled in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Anand Mohan vs. State of Bihar, (2012) 7 SCC 225 that prosecution case cannot be thrown merely on the basis of ante-timed FIR, provided the prosecution case is successfully established on the basis of other cogent and substantive evidence. A report could be ante-timed for 2 reasons, first where the police itself was negligent/lackadaisical in entertaining the report or where the police with design/collusion of the informant with a view to implicate innocents entertains report not at a time when it is purported to have been lodged. The former is to be ignored as an investigational default, giving no advantage to the accused while the latter could be a ground to bring the prosecution case under suspect. Each case will have to be decided on its own merits. We, in this connection, find it useful to quote the observation of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Raghuveer Singh in Government Appeal No. 1226/1982 on 19.9.2013, wherein it held as under: "We have given our serious consideration to the submission placed by the State Counsel but find ourselves in complete disagreement with his contentions as the same is patently fallacious. The reason is that there is mighty difference between a negligent investigation and a dishonest investigation. The Investigating Officer may not be diligent enough to perform his duties well. He may be lackadaisical in his approach and be remiss in the observance of rules and regulations. He might not have acted with requisite alacrity and may be wanting in the ideal virtues of a competent police officer. The Investigating Officer may not be diligent enough to perform his duties well. He may be lackadaisical in his approach and be remiss in the observance of rules and regulations. He might not have acted with requisite alacrity and may be wanting in the ideal virtues of a competent police officer. All the aforesaid negativity would result in the low quality lack-lustre investigation no doubt, but the same shall always remain distinguishable from cases where the police indulges itself in overt acts of foul dishonesty and deliberately does things with ulterior motives and oblique purposes. Then it is entirely a different situation. Omission to do a thing out of neglect is different from the commission of an act with deliberation. ....As we have discussed above, the two heads under which the investigation of a given case may be criticized are clearly separable and cannot be confused with each other. All the police activities attributable to the laxity, remissness, negligence or incompetence may be ignored and must not be allowed to throw the ocular version of the eyewitnesses overboard. That is the settled law and we subscribe to the same view but the activities of the police coming under another head of deliberate dishonesties cannot earn our judicial countenance." 9. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 5 PM, in respect of which FIR came to be lodged at 7.15 PM at P.S. Sikariganj, Gorakhpur at a distance of 2 miles, statements of P.W.-1 & 2 came to be recorded at around 8 PM, same night, and the inquest conducted at 6.30 AM next morning. Going by the above sequence of events, as also the reported time of death as confirmed by the doctor who conducted the autopsy of the victim, the FIR cannot be said to be ante-timed merely on the ground that the distance of the P.S. was mentioned as 6 km in the inquest instead of 2 miles. P.W.-3, the I.O. who conducted the inquest, stated that the distance which he traversed from the P.S. to the scene was 6 kms, thus he recorded the said distance in the inquest. We do not share the perception of P.W.-3, the I.O. that he was at liberty to insert the distance between the scene and P.S. as it was incumbent upon him to insert the same distance as reflected in report as the time of the inquest. We do not share the perception of P.W.-3, the I.O. that he was at liberty to insert the distance between the scene and P.S. as it was incumbent upon him to insert the same distance as reflected in report as the time of the inquest. Ordinarily, a report is available with the author of the inquest. We are of the firm view that even if the FIR is held to be ante-timed on the ground that distance in the FIR is different from that of the inquest yet the same would not affect the prosecution case as this appears to be a reckless act in the part of P.W.-3 as also neither the FIR nor the inquest are piece of substantive evidence, rather have only corroborative value. 10. Section 157 of the Code postulates that upon receipt of an information of the cognizable offence the I.O. is to forthwith send a report to the jurisdictional magistrate. This provision not only acts as a procedural safeguard to check an ante-timed report, control over police authority but also keeps the magistrate informed and updated of investigation of the cognizable case, so that if required it may also issue appropriate directions. Merely because a special report was despatched delayed could not be a ground ipso facto to discredit the entire prosecution case. Such a plea will have to be evaluated in the light of totality of the evidence on record. 11. The law on Section 157 Cr.P.C. is no longer res-integra. The Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Gokaran: (1984) Supp SCC 482 has held as under:- "12. As regards the last circumstance, it is true that the special report was received by the District Magistrate on 29th March but it is not as if every delay in sending such special report to the District Magistrate under Section 157 Cr.P.C. necessarily leads to the inference that the F.I.R. has not been lodged at the time stated or has been ante-timed or ante-dated or that the investigation is not fair and forthright. As has been pointed out by this Court in Pala Singh and Am. As has been pointed out by this Court in Pala Singh and Am. v. State of Punjab (1973) 1 SCR 964 the relevant provision contained in Section 157 Cr.P.C. is really designed to keep the Magistrate informed of the investigation of a cognizable offence so as to be able to control the investigation and if necessary to give appropriate direction under Section 159 Cr.P.C.; but if in a case it is found that the F.I.R. was recorded without delay and the investigation started on that F.I.R. then however improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned that cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable." 12. In the present case, the I.O. was unable to disclose the exact date of despatch of special report under Section 157 Cr.P.C., coupled with the fact that the defence was unable to bring any contra evidence on records to suggest that the special report was sent after long unexplained delay. 13. P.W.-2 is the grandson of P.W.-1 who was accompanying his grandfather, who claims to be an eyewitness. P.W.-2 clarified that on the day of occurrence, he was present in his native village as otherwise he was a student of Class VIII of DAV College, Varanasi but had taken a break in view of apprehended curfew with regard to Ayodhya dispute. His statement was recorded by the I.O. (P.W.-3) at about 8 PM on the day of occurrence itself. Merely because he was unable to disclose the precise date on which the curfew was clamped in Varanasi, would not mean that his presence at the scene is doubtful as otherwise, nothing tangible could come out in his cross-examination which could mar his testimony as an eye-witness. 14. It is well settled that testimony of an inimical witness, cannot be rejected per se, the only caveat is that such testimony is to be examined with care and caution. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Piara Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274 and Hari Obula Reddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1981) 3 SCC 675 . 15. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Piara Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274 and Hari Obula Reddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1981) 3 SCC 675 . 15. We in the light of above legal position and on the basis of evidence available on record, find P.W.'s 1 & 2 to be wholly reliable, prosecution has established its case beyond a reasonable doubt, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is in jail. Office is directed to forthwith communicate this order to the court concerned. Compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months. The Court directs the Registrar General to tender Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) as fee to Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, the learned Amicus.