JUDGMENT : John Michael Cunha, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2014 and order of sentence dated 26.06.2014 passed by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulbarga in S.C.No.96/2013 convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred as "accused") for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. 2. The charge against the accused is that on 29.12.2012 at about 07.30 a.m. in front of Mogalamma's shop in Hanmanalli village, he assaulted the deceased -Bhagawant with sickle on his right side of neck and cut his throat causing instantaneous death suspecting that the deceased was carrying an illicit relationship with his wife. 3. The FIR was registered based on the complaint lodged by PW.1 -father of the deceased, recorded by PW.11 -PSI of Sedam Police Station. According to the prosecution after committing the offence, the accused proceeded to the police station and produced the weapon in the police station and it was seized by PW.13 -Investigating Officer in the presence of two panch witnesses. The medical opinion certified that the deceased died due to cardio-respiratory failure due to Neuro hemorrhagic shock as a result of cutting the neck by sickle. The FSL report (Ex.P.14) certified that the sickle -M.O.1 seized by the Investigating Officer and clothes of the accused -M.Os.4 to 7 were stained with 'B' group blood. Based on these findings, the charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 4. The accused denied the charge framed against him and faced trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Amongst them PWs.1 to 6 were examined as eyewitnesses to the incident, but PWs.3, 4 and 5 failed to support the prosecution case and they were treated as hostile. PWs.7 and 8 were examined to prove the spot mahazar -Ex.P.6, seizure panchanama -Ex.P.7 and seizure of clothes panchanama -Ex.P.8. These witnesses partly supported the prosecution case. PW.9 the Head Constable carried the FIR to the Court. The Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and issued P.M. Report (Ex.P.10) was examined as PW.10. The PSI who registered the FIR was examined as PW.11. These witnesses partly supported the prosecution case. PW.9 the Head Constable carried the FIR to the Court. The Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and issued P.M. Report (Ex.P.10) was examined as PW.10. The PSI who registered the FIR was examined as PW.11. PW.12 was the Head Constable who showed the spot of offence for preparation of the sketch. PW.13 was the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused. 5. Through these witnesses the prosecution got marked 14 documents including the original complaint -Ex.P.1, P.M. Report -Ex.P.10, FSL Report -Ex.P.14. The weapon used for the commission of the offence, namely the sickle was marked as M.O.1, bloodstain clothes of the accused were marked as M.Os.4 to 7. Relying on the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 6, the medical opinion as well as the scientific opinion as per the FSL Report, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the above said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 6. Sri. Basavaraj Kareddy, learned counsel for the accused has assailed the impugned judgment contending that the prosecution has failed to prove its case with the standard of absolute proof. The learned counsel, at the outset, submitted that the FIR relied on by the prosecution is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and the same could not have been treated as the first information of the occurrence, as PW.11, the PSI who registered the FIR has unequivocally stated on oath that before proceeding to the spot, he had received the information of the crime. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that the said information has been suppressed by the prosecution, leading to doubt the very genesis of the occurrence. With regard to the credibility of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, the learned counsel pointed out that even though it was the case of the prosecution that the alleged occurrence was witnessed by six witnesses, amongst them three witnesses have categorically denied their presence at the time of occurrence. With regard to the credibility of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, the learned counsel pointed out that even though it was the case of the prosecution that the alleged occurrence was witnessed by six witnesses, amongst them three witnesses have categorically denied their presence at the time of occurrence. The father of the deceased though had alleged in the complaint that he and his wife PW.2 -Smt. Pantemma were eyewitnesses to the incident, yet in the course of cross-examination he has not only denied the presence of PWs.2 and 6 at the spot of occurrence, but has also admitted that the other witnesses named in the FIR were not present during the occurrence, thereby demolishing the case of the prosecution to the core and discrediting the veracity of the testimony of the witnesses namely P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6. Referring to the cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.2, the learned counsel has emphasized that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would clearly indicate that both these witnesses reached the spot only after the occurrence and their evidence therefore could not have been relied on by the Trial court and if the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is excluded from consideration, the only evidence available in proof of the alleged offence was the uncorroborated evidence of PW.6. 7. Commenting on the evidence of PW.6, the learned counsel for the accused forcefully submitted that his evidence is inconsistent with the case of the prosecution. When it is the case of the prosecution that the alleged occurrence had taken place in front of the Tea Shop of Mogalamma, PW.6 has stated in his evidence that at the time of the occurrence he was sitting in the Hotel of Bhadranna near Ameensab Darga, far away from the spot of occurrence. Further in the cross-examination of PW.6 it is elicited that by the time PW.6 came to the spot, he found the dead body lying in the pool of blood. Based on this evidence, he contends that P.W.6 was not an eyewitness to the incident and that he reached the spot of occurrence only after the incident was over. As a result no eyewitness was available to prove the involvement of the accused in the alleged occurrence. Based on this evidence, he contends that P.W.6 was not an eyewitness to the incident and that he reached the spot of occurrence only after the incident was over. As a result no eyewitness was available to prove the involvement of the accused in the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the presence of PW.6 having been negated by PW.1 himself, the learned Sessions Judge has committed serious error in placing reliance on the evidence of PW.6 to record conviction against the appellant/accused. Thus, the learned counsel prayed for honorable acquittal of the accused. 8. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP arguing for the State would submit that even though the material witnesses examined by the prosecution failed to support the case of the prosecution, yet the circumstances brought out in the course of their cross-examination coupled with evidence of PW.6, the medical evidence and the FSL Report conclusively establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Addl. SPP would submit that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution were rustic villagers and therefore their evidence has to be considered as whole in the background of their life situation and therefore any minor and insignificant discrepancies brought out in their evidence cannot be made a ground to discard their evidence. It is the submission of the learned Addl. SPP that the evidence led by the prosecution if appreciated in its entirety it discloses that the alleged occurrence had taken place in broad daylight; the accused was known to the witnesses; they have identified the accused in the course of trial and the same has not been disputed. The identification of the weapon is also not disputed. Moreover, the said weapon having been produced by the accused himself which fact has not been controverted in the cross-examination, there is clinching evidence to connect the accused to the crime establishing his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. He further pointed out that the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 6 clearly make out the motive for the commission of the offence and in the wake of this evidence, the trial court was justified in recording a finding of guilt against the accused. 9. Meeting the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the FIR registered by PW.11 – PSI is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C, the learned Addl. 9. Meeting the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the FIR registered by PW.11 – PSI is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C, the learned Addl. SPP by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri. Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das and another vs. State of Assam reported in 2010 (2) Criminal 630 would submit that though ordinarily investigation is undertaken on information received by a police officer, yet, the receipt of information is not a condition precedent for investigation. The principles are now well settled that when information regarding a cognizable offence is furnished to the police that information will be regarded as the FIR and all enquiries held by the police subsequent thereto would be treated as investigation, even though the formal registration of the FIR takes place only later. 10. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. 11. Insofar as the legal contention urged by learned counsel for the accused that the FIR registered in the case amounts to a statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, we are unable to accept the said submission. No doubt, the law requires the police to register the FIR based on the information given to the police in respect of the commission of a cognizable offence. In the instant case, reading of the evidence of PW.11 clearly indicate that PW.11 did not have any definite information about the commission of cognizable offence. His evidence goes to show that at about 08.30 a.m. he received the information about the murder of the deceased by name Bhagawant. He did not have any other particulars or details with regard to the time and place of the alleged occurrence which prompted him rush to the spot. In the said circumstance, he was not required to register the FIR. The question of registering FIR would arise only when any information disclosing of a cognizable offence is laid before the officer in charge of a police station, satisfying the requirements of Section 154 (1) of the Code, such police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say to register the case on the basis of such information. 12. 12. In the instant case, P.W.11 did not have any information satisfying the requirement of Sections 154(1) of Cr.P.C. The information received by him was required to be ascertained before proceeding in the matter. It is not the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that P.W.11 has embarked upon the investigation before registering the case. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.11 clearly indicate that after reaching the spot he received the statement of P.W.1 and based on the said statement, he registered the FIR against the accused, as such, there is no infirmity or illegality whatsoever in registering the FIR against the appellant. The information received by P.W.11 regarding suspicion of commission of an offence does not constitute an information within the meaning of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. and therefore the statement recorded by P.W.11 at the spot cannot be termed as a statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Either way, the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be rejected. 13. Coming to the merits, the prosecution has based its case on the direct evidence of eyewitness who have been examined as PWs.1 to 6. Amongst them PWs.3, 4 and 5 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. We have considered the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the accused, we are not inclined to accept PWs.1 and 2 as eyewitnesses to the incident, as their evidence would indicate that both these witnesses reached the spot only after commission of the occurrence. In this regard even though in the complaint it is stated that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the presence of complainant, CWs.4, 5 and 6, yet, complainant has categorically admitted during trial that he has not stated so in his complaint. As such no credence could be given to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. But, insofar as the evidence of PW.6 is concerned, we find that his evidence deserves full credence. 14. P.W.6 has deposed that he personally witnessed the incident at about 07.30 a.m. and saw the accused assaulting on the neck of the deceased with a sickle causing his death. He has further stated that when he rushed to the spot, accused went away holding the sickle. He has even deposed about the motive for the commission of the offence. P.W.6 has deposed that he personally witnessed the incident at about 07.30 a.m. and saw the accused assaulting on the neck of the deceased with a sickle causing his death. He has further stated that when he rushed to the spot, accused went away holding the sickle. He has even deposed about the motive for the commission of the offence. On going through the cross-examination of this witness, we find that the core statement of this witness has not been challenged in the cross-examination and no circumstances are brought out in his evidence to doubt or disbelieve the statements made by him on oath. There was not even a remote suggestion to show that P.W.6 was having animosity or grudge against the accused so as to give false evidence against the accused. On the other hand, it is elicited in the cross-examination that during the occurrence he witnessed the incident from the hotel of one Bhadranna where he was having Tea. Though the learned counsel for the accused has tried to persuade us to hold that by the time he reached the spot he found the dead body lying in pool of blood, but on scrutiny of his entire evidence, we find intrinsic truth in his evidence. P.W.6 has stood by his statement that during the occurrence he was sitting in the hotel of one Bhadranna which was situated at a distance about 4-5 houses away from the spot of occurrence and naturally by the time he reached the spot the deceased has fallen in a pool of blood on account of the injuries inflicted by the accused. That does not mean that he did not view the incident from the place where he was sitting as sought to be made out. An attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the accused to impeach the credit of the witnesses by taking us through the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. It is trite law that the credit of a witness cannot be impeached by the testimony of other witness, except through the mode provided under Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act. If for any reason, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have failed to name P.W.6 as one of the eyewitness, the same does not lead to doubt or disbelieve the evidence of PW.6. If for any reason, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have failed to name P.W.6 as one of the eyewitness, the same does not lead to doubt or disbelieve the evidence of PW.6. Moreover, the evidence of PW.6 goes to show that he witnessed the incident from the hotel of one Bhadranna located by the side of his house. It is not the case of PWs.1 or 2 that they were also having tea in the same hotel. Under such circumstances, naturally there was no occasion for PWs.1 or 2 to notice PW.6. On considering the quality of the evidence of P.W.6 and reasons assigned by him for his presence near the spot of occurrence and the statement made by this witness on oath having not been falsified or discredited to any extent and he having proved to be an independent and disinterested witness, in our view, the evidence of PW.6 deserves full credence and could be made the sole basis to convict the accused. 15. Even otherwise, we find enough material on record lending corroboration to the testimony of P.W.6. As already stated above, the Investigating Officer has clearly stated in his evidence that after commission of the offence the accused himself appeared before the police and produced the weapon -sickle which was seized under Ex.P.7 – seizure mahazar. It is important to note that this evidence has not been controverted in the course of the cross-examination, except putting a suggestion to PW.11 that the statement made by him about the seizure of Mos.1 to 7 is false and there is no denial of statement made by PW.11 that M.O.1 was produced by accused himself before the police. 16. The evidence of PW.13 also inspires confidence to hold that the said weapon was produced before him along with the dead body. The learned counsel for the accused himself has elicited in the course of cross-examination of P.W.13 that “CPI Santosh Bannatti brought the MO.1 as it is without sealing. The said CPI has not given a requisition to examine the MO.1. I did not mention the description of the MO.1. I did not maintain inward and outward register in respect of MLC cases. In Ex.P.11, I did not mention the date of examination of MO.1 so also in respect of receipt of the same for examination. MO.1 was sent along with the dead body. I did not mention the description of the MO.1. I did not maintain inward and outward register in respect of MLC cases. In Ex.P.11, I did not mention the date of examination of MO.1 so also in respect of receipt of the same for examination. MO.1 was sent along with the dead body. First I saw the MO.1 then I started the autopsy". This evidence supports the case of the prosecution that M.O.1 was produced by the accused himself and it was produced before P.W.13 along with the dead body for his examination and opinion. 17. PW.13 has categorically stated that on examination of M.O.1 he has given his opinion to the effect that the injuries found on the neck of the deceased could be caused by assault with M.O.1. It is also proved by the prosecution that after seizure of the weapon the same was sent for chemical examination. The FSL Report confirms the existence of bloodstains on M.O.1 as well as on the clothes of the accused and both were stained with ‘B’ group blood. 18. Accused has not disputed the evidence relating to the recovery of sickle and seizure of his clothes that contained the very same blood group as that of the deceased. There is no explanation by the accused as to the presence of blood stains on his clothes, during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., except general denial. 19. The above facts in our view conclusively establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that he committed the murder of the deceased at about 07.30 a.m. on account of suspicion that the deceased was carrying on illicit relationship with his wife. Even on re-appreciation of the entire material on record, we do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the trial court holding the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 20. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following : ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2014 and order of sentence dated 26.06.2014 passed by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulbarga in S.C.No.96/2013, is confirmed.