Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1351 (ALL)

Ram Charan Singh v. State of U. P.

2022-08-26

MANOJ MISRA, SAMEER JAIN

body2022
JUDGMENT : Manoj Misra, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated October 19, 1983 passed by third Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in S.T. No.780 of 1982 convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to imprisonment for life. INTRODUCTORY FACTS 2. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, as per the written report (Ex. Ka-1), lodged by Dharamveer (PW-1), is that in the morning of 10.09.1982, at about 6 am, while the informant was easing himself in the open field, he heard screams of his nephew Chiranji (the deceased) coming from the field of Ajab Singh, which had standing maize crop. Reacting to the screams, the informant, Kundan (PW-2) and Chiranji’s mother (not examined) reached the spot. There, they witnessed Ram Charan (appellant no.1) and Rajpal (appellant no.2) pinning down Chiranji and putting pressure on him after having tied a knot around his neck by using his trouser. When the informant and others came to rescue him, Rajpal threatened them by saying that if anybody comes forward, he would be shot dead, as a result whereof, the informant party stayed away. Both the accused, thereafter, dragged the deceased into the Jwar (millet) field by pulling him with the aid of that trouser tied around Chiranji’s neck. On raising alarm, when several persons arrived and tracking the drag marks they reached the neighbouring sugar cane field of Udayeer, they found Chiranji dead with 3 to 4 knots of that trouser tied on his neck. It was alleged that body of Chiranji was lifted from the spot and brought to his house where after, they have come to lodge the report. With regard to the motive for the crime, it was disclosed that about 8-9 months ago, the deceased was caught with the sister of the accused; the accused had then beaten Chiranji as well as their sister. Since then the accused were inimical towards Chiranji. The written report, which was scribed by Jodha Singh (not examined), was lodged at 9.20 am on 10.09.1982 at P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr, which is at a distance of 14 km from the spot, giving rise to case crime no.299 of 1982. The G.D. Entry in respect of lodgement of the written report was made vide report no.18 (Ex. Ka-10) by PW-5 who also prepared Chik Report (Ex. Ka-9). 3. The G.D. Entry in respect of lodgement of the written report was made vide report no.18 (Ex. Ka-10) by PW-5 who also prepared Chik Report (Ex. Ka-9). 3. Inquest was conducted by PW-4 while the body of the deceased was lying on a cot at the Baithak of the house of the deceased at village Shahpur. The inquest report (Ex. Ka-3) recites, inter alia, (a) that information was received from Dharamveer (PW-1) at 9.20 hours on 10.09.1982; (b) that the police left the police station to go to the spot at 11.45 hours on 10.09.1982; (c) that the distance of the spot from the police station was 16 km; (d) that the body of the deceased was carrying an open shirt and an underwear; and (e) that next to the body was a nylon trouser of the deceased, which was seized by the police. The inquest report was witnessed by Harish Chandra (village Pradhan), Charan Singh, Kundan Singh, Ajab Singh and Prahlad Singh. None of them has been examined. It be mentioned that in the second page of the inquest report there is recital of the case details i.e. Case Crime No.299 under Section 302 IPC. The inquest report also notices that PW-4 conducted the inquest under the direction of Inspector Sri Harinandan Singh. 4. The autopsy of the cadaver was conducted by Chandra Prakash (PW-3) on 11.09.1982 at about 3 pm. According to the autopsy report, the deceased was aged about 19 years. The autopsy report (Ex. Ka-2) records:- External Examination: Thin built body. Rigor mortis passing off. No sign of decomposition seen. Bleeding from both nostrils present. Tongue congested. Lips swollen. Ante-mortem injuries: (i) Abraded contusion 7” x 1” on anterior aspect of neck horizontally placed across wind pipe extending from below left angle of mandible to right neck. (ii) Abraded contusion 10” x 7” on anterior lower chest and upper abdomen both sides, 2” above umbilicus. (iii) Abraded contusion 1½” x ¾” on anterior aspect right knee joint. (iv) Abraded contusion 1¼” x ½” on left knee joint anterior aspect. Internal examination: Right greater cornua of hyoid bone fractured; Pleura congested; first and second tracheal cartilages fractured; internal lining deeply congested; and (sic) muscles of neck and soft tissue around the wind wipes were lacerated and deeply congested; right carotid sheath ruptured along with its contents. Opinion:- Death due to asphyxia as a result of injury no.1. Internal examination: Right greater cornua of hyoid bone fractured; Pleura congested; first and second tracheal cartilages fractured; internal lining deeply congested; and (sic) muscles of neck and soft tissue around the wind wipes were lacerated and deeply congested; right carotid sheath ruptured along with its contents. Opinion:- Death due to asphyxia as a result of injury no.1. Duration since death:- About 1½ days back. 5. During the course of investigation, the police seized the trouser of the deceased of which a seizure memo (Ex. Ka-8) was prepared on 10.09.1982. 6. After recording the statement of witnesses and completing the investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet (Ex. Ka-12) on 09.11.1982. After taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the case was committed to the court of session giving rise to S.T. No.780 of 1982 in the court of third Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. 7. On January 14, 1983, both the appellants were charged under section 302 read with 34 IPC for committing murder of Chiranji on 10.09.1982 at about 6 am. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, Dharamveer (PW-1) (informant and an eye witness of the incident); Kundan (PW-2) (another eye witness of the incident); Dr. Chandra Prakash (PW-3) (the autopsy surgeon who conducted the autopsy of the body of Chiranji); Yashvir Singh (PW-4) (the Sub-Inspector who prepared the inquest report); Sewati Lal (PW-5) (the constable who made GD entry of the written report and prepared Chik FIR); and Ramphal Singh Tyagi (PW-6) (the investigating officer). 9. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were separately put to the two appellants. The appellant Ram Charan denied the incriminating circumstances and, in response to a question as to why he has been falsely implicated, stated that the witnesses are related to each other and are supporters of village Pradhan Harish Chandra. Harish Chandra on account of a chak road dispute was inimical; hence, because of village party bandi, he had been falsely implicated. Similar is the statement of the other appellant, namely, Rajpal. The accused, however, led no defence evidence. 10. The trial court by placing reliance on the ocular account, finding the same corroborated by medical evidence and material collected during the course of investigation, convicted the appellants, as above. 11. Similar is the statement of the other appellant, namely, Rajpal. The accused, however, led no defence evidence. 10. The trial court by placing reliance on the ocular account, finding the same corroborated by medical evidence and material collected during the course of investigation, convicted the appellants, as above. 11. We have heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Rizwan Ahmad and Sri Gaurav Tripathi, Amicus Curiae, for the appellants; Sri H.M.B. Sinha, learned AGA, for the State; and have perused the record. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS 12. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish a cogent motive for the crime. Although, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased had some relations with the sister of the accused but that relationship, and any specific incident arising therefrom, has not been proved to demonstrate that there existed a cogent motive for the crime. In the testimony of PW-1 the name of that sister of the accused is disclosed as Dharmo. According to PW-1, Chiranji (the deceased) had teased Dharmo 8-9 months before the incident. There is no clear cut evidence with respect to the age of Dharmo though, at one place it is disclosed as between 9 and 10 years. In paragraph 10 of PW-1’s deposition Chiranji’s age is disclosed as between 10 and 13 years. If the two were that young, the motive for the crime is absurd and therefore, the prosecution story appears highly improbable. 13. It was next submitted that the ocular account does not inspire confidence because if the accused had carried a pistol, as is alleged by the witnesses in their deposition during trial, what was the occasion not to use the weapon and, instead, use the trouser of the deceased to strangulate him. Further, if the alarm raised by the witnesses had attracted the villagers, why no attempt was made to save the deceased. Further, the ocular account is in respect of strangulation by tying a trouser knot around the neck of the deceased but there is no ligature mark found. Further, if the alarm raised by the witnesses had attracted the villagers, why no attempt was made to save the deceased. Further, the ocular account is in respect of strangulation by tying a trouser knot around the neck of the deceased but there is no ligature mark found. When the autopsy surgeon (PW-3) was questioned in that regard, he submitted that there is a high possibility that injury no.1, which was considered fatal, was a result of pressing the neck with the aid of lathi whereas in the ocular account there is no indication that the neck was pressed by a lathi or a blunt object therefore, the ocular account appears in conflict with the medical evidence. 14. Even the presence of prosecution witnesses at the spot appears doubtful because if they had been there, they would have made an attempt to save the deceased. 15. It was submitted that the FIR appears ante-timed for the following reasons: (i) All papers entered in the inquest report and alleged to have been forwarded to the autopsy surgeon, did not reach the autopsy surgeon. The record reflects that documents such as the Chik FIR and the GD entry of the FIR were to accompany the inquest report as they find mention at the back of the inquest report but those were not received by the autopsy surgeon, which means that when the body was dispatched for autopsy, the FIR and the GD entry of the FIR was not in existence therefore, those papers were not forwarded to the autopsy surgeon. (ii) The report that is to be forwarded forthwith to the Magistrate under Section 157 CrPC was forwarded by C.O. on 13.09.1982 as is clear from the statement of PW-5. This delay also suggests that the FIR had not come into existence by then and it came into existence after the autopsy was conducted on 11.09.1982. (iii) That if the Chik report had been in existence at the time of inquest, the distance of the police station from the spot entered in the inquest report would have been same as in the Chik report. In the instant case, in the Chik report the distance entered is 14 km, whereas in the inquest report the distance entered is 16 km. In the instant case, in the Chik report the distance entered is 14 km, whereas in the inquest report the distance entered is 16 km. (iv) During cross examination of PW-1 (the informant), his attention was invited to the omission in the written report with regard to the parentage of the accused. In response thereto, PW-1 stated that he had told the scribe, after the written report was read out to him, that he has not mentioned the name of father of the accused but the scribe told him that it is not required as the accused have already been taken to the police station. It has been submitted that this statement of PW-1 is a clear indication of the fact that the accused were arrested even before the first information report came into existence. Whereas, the statement of I.O. would suggest that the arrest was made after registration of the FIR therefore, it is a clear case where the FIR came into existence later than what is reflected in the records. 16. In addition to above, it has been submitted that there is contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. According to PW1, the trouser, used as a weapon of assault, was left in the field and was brought by constable of police station Chandpur, whereas, according to PW-2, the trouser was brought by the informant party and handed over to the I.O. 17. It was next submitted that this is a case where the deceased was killed in the wee hours of the morning, when there was no light. It is customary for people to attend to nature’s call before sun rise and, by the very nature of the activity, people tend to squat at a distance from each other so that they are not visible to each other. Thus, it appears to be a case where in the darkness of wee hours of the morning someone dragged the deceased and killed him, when no one was present. But as the drag marks appeared in the field, following the drag marks, body was found. Later, by guess-work, on the basis of enmity, first information report was lodged with the help of village Pradhan who visited the police station along with one Tota to lodge the report against the accused. 18. But as the drag marks appeared in the field, following the drag marks, body was found. Later, by guess-work, on the basis of enmity, first information report was lodged with the help of village Pradhan who visited the police station along with one Tota to lodge the report against the accused. 18. In a nutshell, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that it is an incident not witnessed by any person; that the witnesses belong to the same family and can therefore be considered as partisan witnesses; that there was village party bandi in connection with Pradhan elections and there existed a chak road dispute, therefore, the witnesses fall in the category of interested witnesses; that no independent witness has been examined; that the medical evidence does not support the ocular account; and that the first information report appears ante-timed. All of this would suggest that the prosecution case is contrived and the appellants have been falsely implicated either on strong suspicion or on the basis of enmity. It was thus prayed that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and order of conviction be set aside. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE 19. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that considering the distance of the police station from the spot, the first information report has been lodged promptly. The presence of PW-1 and PW-2 has not been questioned and no suggestion has been put to the eye witnesses that they had not visited the spot to defecate at the time when the incident occurred. It was submitted that there is no specific reason disclosed for false implication other than village party bandi, which is general and vague. It has not come in the statement of any of the accused that there was any past case, regarding any incident between the parties, which may indicate that there was strong enmity between the accused and the informant/eye witnesses therefore, there was no good reason to falsely implicate the accused. Learned AGA submitted that the medical evidence does not rule out the ocular account. The autopsy surgeon in his deposition has not rule out the possibility of the deceased being strangulated with the aid of a trouser tied around his neck. Not only that, drag marks were noticed by the I.O. on the spot which correlate with the abraded contusion found on the body of the deceased. The autopsy surgeon in his deposition has not rule out the possibility of the deceased being strangulated with the aid of a trouser tied around his neck. Not only that, drag marks were noticed by the I.O. on the spot which correlate with the abraded contusion found on the body of the deceased. All these circumstances signify that the witnesses had actually witnessed the incident. It has been submitted that the graphic description of the manner in which the deceased was dragged with the aid of trouser knotted around the neck, would indicate that it was witnessed by the witnesses and the ocular account is truthful. Even if there were lapses in sending the special report under Section 157 CrPC, the prosecution story cannot be disbelieved. 20. In response to the argument that the first information report was ante-timed, learned AGA submitted that the inquest report contains the case details suggesting that the first information report had already been lodged. Further, there is no statutory requirement to send copy of the chik FIR and GD entry of the written report to the autopsy surgeon. As the inquest report was forwarded to the autopsy surgeon and it bears the details of the case, the name of the informant and the date and time when the information was given by the informant, it cannot be said that the first information report was not in existence till the autopsy was conducted. Learned AGA therefore submits that this is a case where the ocular account finds support from the medical evidence and the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case therefore, the judgment and order of the trial court deserves to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 21. Having noticed the rival submissions and the introductory facts of the case, before we proceed further, it would be useful to notice, in brief, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Their testimony, in brief, is as follows:- 22. PW-1-Dharamvir (the informant). PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 21. Having noticed the rival submissions and the introductory facts of the case, before we proceed further, it would be useful to notice, in brief, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Their testimony, in brief, is as follows:- 22. PW-1-Dharamvir (the informant). PW-1 stated that the deceased Chiranji is his nephew; the accused Ram Charan and Rajpal are real brothers; at the time of the incident, at about 6 am, while he was defecating in the field of Ajab Singh, he heard screams of his nephew Chiranji; hearing the screams, PW-1 rushed to the spot; Kundan (PW-2) and Ramkaur (mother of the deceased) also arrived; there, they noticed Ram Charan and Rajpal having tied a noose around the neck of Chiranji made out of Chiranji’s trouser and were pressing his neck; when PW-1 and others tried to intervene, the accused threatened them to stay away or else they will be shot, as a result, the witnesses retreated; the accused dragged the deceased by pulling the trouser tied on Chiranji’s neck and dragged him right through Ajab Singh’s Jwar (Millet) field; when on the alarms of PW-1, PW-2 and deceased’s mother, 4-6 men including Raghuveer, Ramveer, Sukkha and Bundu arrived, following the drag marks noticed in the fields, they found the body of Chiranji lying in the sugar cane filed of Udayveer; they all noticed that the trouser of Chiranji was tightly knotted, with 3-4 knots, around his neck. PW-1 stated that those knots were untied and the body of Chiranji was brought to his house and kept on a cot. PW-1 stated that the written report of the incident was got scribed by dictating it to Jodha. The written report was made Ex. Ka-1. In respect of the motive for the crime, PW-1 stated that 8-9 months before the incident, Chiranji had teased accused’s sister Dharmo. On a query of the court, PW-1 stated that he can write a little bit in Hindi. During cross examination by the defence, PW-1 stated that accused persons are sons of Lal Singh (some where it is stated Leela Singh); Lal Singh has three daughters, namely, Shikha aged 24 years, Rajpali aged 18 years and Dharmo aged 9-10 years. In respect of PW-1’s relation with Kundan (PW-2), PW-1 stated that Meghraj and Lekhraj are real brothers. PW-1 is son of Lekhraj, whereas PW-2 (Kundan) is son of Meghraj. In respect of PW-1’s relation with Kundan (PW-2), PW-1 stated that Meghraj and Lekhraj are real brothers. PW-1 is son of Lekhraj, whereas PW-2 (Kundan) is son of Meghraj. PW-1 stated that Neksa son of Lekhraj is in police and is posted at Dehradun. Neksa is the father of Chiranji. In respect of village party bandi, PW-1 stated that prior to the incident there was election of Pradhan in which Charan Singh, Bhabuti and Harish Chandra had contested. PW-1 and his family had supported Harish Chandra, whereas the accused and his family had supported Charan Singh. Harish Chandra had won the election. On account of Pradhan election, there is party bandi in the village. The leader of one side is Harish Chandra, whereas the leader of the other side is Charan Singh. In respect of the dispute between Harish Chandra and Leela Singh over a chak road, PW-1 stated that he has no knowledge. In respect of the parentage of the accused persons, he stated that both are sons of Leela Singh (Jat). He denied the suggestion that there is any other person by the name of Rajpal in the village. In respect of omission of parentage of the accused in the written report, PW-1 stated that he had dictated the parentage of the accused for being mentioned in the report but it may have been left out inadvertently. PW-1 then clarified that when the report was read out to him, he had pointed out to the scribe that father’s name of the accused has not been mentioned therefore, the same may be mentioned, upon which, the scribe stated that it can be filled later as the accused have already been taken to the police station. At this stage, it would be useful to reproduce the exact statement of PW-1 in that regard, which is as follows:- tc fjiksVZ eq>s iढ+ dj lqukbZ xbZ rks eSaus fy[kus okys ls dgk Fkk fd rqeus eqyfteksa ds cki dk uke vkSj tkr ugha fy[kh gS bldks fy[k nks rks mlus dgk fd pyks jgus nks] eqyfteku rks Fkkus igqWp gh x;s gS vkxs fy[kok nsukA** In respect of accused’s sister Dharmo, PW-1 stated that her name was mentioned in the written report but if it was not written, he cannot give reason for the same. PW-1 stated that at the time when Chiranji died, Dharmo must have been aged 10-12-13 years old; and that the house of Chiranji and the accused persons were adjoining each other. PW-1 stated that no report was lodged by the accused in respect of Chiranji teasing Dharmo. He also stated that he does not remember the day and date of that incident but he was aware of that incident since before the death of Chiranji. The information of that incident was given by Rajendra Master to his brother Kundan Singh (PW-2) and PW-2 had informed PW-1. He denied the suggestion that there was no such incident of Chiranji teasing Dharmo. In paragraph 12 of his statement, PW-1 stated that Chiranji and PW-1 are of the same Khandaan and since death of PW-1’s father, Chiranji’s family and PW-1’s family have their food cooked at one place. In respect of the field in which they had gone to defecate, PW-1 stated that that field was of Ajab Singh of about 28 Kachcha bigha. In about 8 bigha, Jwar was sown whereas the rest had maize (Makka). In paragraph 17, PW-1 stated that at that time the maize crop was tall, equal to the height of a man. In the field of Udayveer, there was sugar cane crop which was taller than a man. He stated that Ajab Singh’s field was adjoining the village and the accused had killed the deceased in the next field. He stated that he had shown the spot to the I.O. In paragraph 18, PW-1 stated that at the time of the incident, the sun was not out. PW-1 stated that the spot where noose was tied around the neck of Chiranji was at a distance of 20-25 paces from the spot where PW-1 was defecating. PW-1 stated that when he heard the screams, he could gather that some untoward incident has occurred. He ran towards the spot while raising alarm but at that time nobody was working in the field. Nabiya, however, was harvesting his maize crop but all those who arrived there, did not have lathi/danda. PW-1 stated that the accused dragged Chiranji towards south east. At the time when the accused were dragging Chiranji, they had raised alarm but they all were bare handed. The accused Rajpal had a Katta (country made pistol). Nabiya, however, was harvesting his maize crop but all those who arrived there, did not have lathi/danda. PW-1 stated that the accused dragged Chiranji towards south east. At the time when the accused were dragging Chiranji, they had raised alarm but they all were bare handed. The accused Rajpal had a Katta (country made pistol). PW-1 stated that he had mentioned in the report that Rajpal had Katta in his hand but if it was left out, he cannot give the reason for the same. PW-1 also stated that he had disclosed to the I.O. that Rajpal had Katta in his hand but if it was left out while recording his statement, he cannot give the reason for the same. PW-1 stated that when the witnesses collectively entered the standing Jwar crop, the accused left Chiranji 10-15 paces away and escaped. In paragraph 19, PW-1 stated that he had disclosed in the report that the accused had tied a noose around the neck of the deceased with the aid of trouser but the word Phaansi was not used. In paragraph 21, PW-1 stated that at the place where the body was lying, about 100 villagers had arrived including Pradhan Harish Chandra and Chowkidar Tota. At this stage, on being questioned by the court, PW-1 stated that the body was left in the field for 15 minutes. Amongst those who had arrived there, 50% had arrived from their field whereas the balance came from their residence. PW-1 stated that the body of Chiranji was brought to his house on a cot by Raghuveer, Ramveer and Nanak. The cot with the body was kept at the chabutara in front of the Baithak. PW-1 stated that the body was kept there till the police had arrived. Thereafter, he left to lodge the report. In paragraph 22, PW-1 stated that the trouser was left in the field and was brought by a constable of P.S. Chandpur. In paragraph 22, PW-1 stated that to lodge the report, Harish Chandra and Tota had come with him. In paragraph 23, PW-1 stated that after leaving the body at home, they had first gone to Sahkari Nagar Chowki, thereafter, they came to Bulandshahr whereafter, they went to Kutchery. At Kutchery, they found Jodha Singh who scribed the report. They arrived there on a ‘Tonga’, which took them 45 minutes. In paragraph 23, PW-1 stated that after leaving the body at home, they had first gone to Sahkari Nagar Chowki, thereafter, they came to Bulandshahr whereafter, they went to Kutchery. At Kutchery, they found Jodha Singh who scribed the report. They arrived there on a ‘Tonga’, which took them 45 minutes. At Kutchery, it took them about half an hour to scribe the report. PW1 stated that he did not know Jodha from before but Tota knew him. PW-1 stated that Jodha Singh was informed about the incident by him. When questioned by the court, PW-1 stated that to go to P.S. Chandpur from Sahkari Nagar Police Chowki one has to pass through Bulandshahr. In paragraph 24, PW-1 stated that after getting information of the incident, Neksa came next day from Dehradun and went straight to the mortuary at Bulandshahr. He denied the suggestion that the first information report was lodged after arrival of Neksa in consultation with Harish Chandra and the police; and that the written report was ante-timed. PW-1 stated that after lodging the report, they arrived at the village by about 9.30 and within 15 minutes thereafter the police of police station Chandpur arrived. Thereafter, PW-1 stated that the police might have arrived about half an hour later. In paragraph 26, PW-1 stated that about 10-12 police personnel had arrived from police station Chandpur in which 2-3 police personnel were of the rank of Daroga (sub inspector), rest were constables. He denied the suggestion that some unknown person had killed Chiranji and that no one witnessed the incident. He also denied the suggestion that the incident had not occurred in the manner alleged. He denied the suggestion that the accused were implicated on account of enmity and party bandi at the instance of Gram Pradhan, Neksa and the police. On being shown the trouser (material Ex. C-1), he identified the trouser as the one which was used to strangulate the deceased. When the trouser was taken out, its length was found to be equal to 4 and a half handspan. On being cross examined by the defence, after the trouser was made material Ex. C-1, PW-1 denied the suggestions that at the time of the incident Chiranji was aged 18-20 years and that the trouser (Ex.-C-1) was not of Chiranji. 23. PW-2-Kundan. PW-2 reiterated what has been stated by PW1 in his examination in chief. On being cross examined by the defence, after the trouser was made material Ex. C-1, PW-1 denied the suggestions that at the time of the incident Chiranji was aged 18-20 years and that the trouser (Ex.-C-1) was not of Chiranji. 23. PW-2-Kundan. PW-2 reiterated what has been stated by PW1 in his examination in chief. He stated that after untying the trouser knots from the neck of the deceased, the body was brought on a cot to Chiranji’s house and PW-2’s son had brought that trouser of the deceased from the spot. PW-2 identified the trouser (Ex. C-1) and stated that it is that very trouser with which the accused tied a noose around the neck of the deceased. PW-2 stated that in the house of Leela Singh and Rajpal there is a Montessori school run by Master Rajendra. Chiranji was a student of that school; Rajendra Master had told him, about 8-7 months before the incident, that Chiranji will not be allowed to continue because he had been teasing Rajpal’s sister Dharmo. PW-2 stated that because of this animosity the deceased Chiranji was killed. In paragraph 8 of his statement, PW-2 stated that he had not disclosed to the I.O. that a Montessori school was being run in the house of Leela Singh and Rajpal. PW-2 stated that he forgot to disclose the same to the I.O. PW-2 also informed the court that when he came to know that Chiranji had teased Dharmo, he got Chiranji removed from the school. He denied the suggestion that Chiranji was stopped from going to the school. He also denied the suggestion that Chiranji had not teased Dharmo and that the story was developed on the suggestion of the police. Questions were also put to him in respect of the spot from where he witnessed the incident, PW-2 disclosed that he was also defecating at that time and had arrived at the spot on hearing screams. In respect of the height of the standing crop in the field, he stated, as was stated by PW-1, that the crops were tall. He reiterated that he had informed the I.O. that his son had brought the trouser of the deceased from the spot. In respect of time of arrival of the police, PW-2 stated that the police had arrived by about 10 hours. He reiterated that he had informed the I.O. that his son had brought the trouser of the deceased from the spot. In respect of time of arrival of the police, PW-2 stated that the police had arrived by about 10 hours. PW-2 stated that the trouser was handed over to the police by him and a memorandum in respect thereof was prepared. PW-2 stated that in the memorandum he had signed but the memorandum, which is there, does not bear his signature. Note:-It be noted that the trouser seizure memo (Ex. Ka-8) does not disclose that PW-2 is a witness thereof. PW-2 stated that the inquest was held in his presence. PW-2 added that the body was taken from home at 11-11.30 am for being dispatched to Bulandshahr. PW-2 stated that the body was brought to the mortuary by about 2 pm but the autopsy was conducted next day. During this time, they were there at the mortuary. PW-2 also stated that the body was delivered at around 4.30 pm. PW-2 stated that the date when the autopsy was conducted, the deceased’s father Neska arrived from Dehradun. PW-2 stated that he had not gone with Dharamvir to lodge the report though Tota had gone. PW-2 stated that his statement was recorded that very day at 1.30 pm. PW-2 denied the suggestion that he did not witness the incident and that on account of enmity and party bandi and relationship, he is telling lies. 24. PW-3-Dr. Chandra Prakash. PW-3 proved the autopsy report which was marked Ex. Ka-2. He was shown Ex. Ka-1 (trouser). He stated that if Ex. Ka-1 is tied around the neck and is pulled then the nature of the injury, recited as injury no.1, is possible. PW-3 stated that the injury no.1 by itself is sufficient to cause death. PW-3 stated that 7 out of 9 papers that were received by him at the time of autopsy are there before him. During cross examination, PW-3 stated that injury no.1 was not all around the neck but towards the front. He clarified that if someone is pulled by tying a cloth on the neck then it is not necessary that injury would be caused all around the neck. He accepted the possibility that injury no.1 can also be caused if the front of the neck is pressed by a lathi. He clarified that if someone is pulled by tying a cloth on the neck then it is not necessary that injury would be caused all around the neck. He accepted the possibility that injury no.1 can also be caused if the front of the neck is pressed by a lathi. On being shown the cloth of the trouser, PW-3 stated that it is of nylon and of soft material. PW-3 stated that if this pant is tied around the neck and one is pulled, it might result in an abraded contusion. PW-3 stated that injury would be caused at that point where pressure is put. He denied the suggestion that no abrasion with contusion would be caused if the pant is tied on the neck and is pulled. PW-3 stated that the width of the injury would depend on the width of the cloth tied around the neck. He accepted that it is more probable that injury no.1 may be caused by a lathi pressing the neck. On further cross examination, he stated that it is also possible that the deceased might have been aged 21 years. In respect of the time when the body was received, PW-3 stated that the body was received on 11.09.1982 at 2.45 pm and the concerned papers were received at about 12.30 pm. PW-3 stated that the time when the autopsy was conducted all the papers, that he received, were signed by him. He accepted that the deceased could have died at 3 am on 10.09.1982 or one or two hours earlier but not earlier than that. 25. PW-4-Yashvir Singh. PW-4 conducted the inquest proceedings. PW-4 stated that the body of Chiranji was kept in a cot in front of his Baithak. He proved the inquest report, which was marked Ex. Ka-2. He proved the letter making a request for autopsy, chalan lash and photo-nash. PW-4 stated that he had noticed the trouser kept near the body. It was seized and a seizure memo (Ex. Ka8) was prepared. He also identified the trouser seized, which was exhibited as Ex. C-1. In his cross examination, PW-4 stated that at the time of inquest proceedings there were 30-40 men including Gram Pradhan Harish Chandra, who was one of the inquest witnesses. PW-4 stated that the trouser seized was found kept on the cot near the head of the body. On being shown Ex. C-1. In his cross examination, PW-4 stated that at the time of inquest proceedings there were 30-40 men including Gram Pradhan Harish Chandra, who was one of the inquest witnesses. PW-4 stated that the trouser seized was found kept on the cot near the head of the body. On being shown Ex. Ka-6 (chalan lash), PW-4 stated that in the fifth column there appears some over writing and in Ex. Ka-4 to Ex. Ka-6 the name of the accused and the section is not mentioned. PW-4 stated that in the inquest report, he had stated that the death was on account of strangulation but he has not mentioned as to how he was strangulated. PW-4 also stated that in the inquest report, he had not made a mention of the trouser being soiled. In paragraph 3 of his statement, he stated that the body was dispatched at about 1 am on a ‘Tonga’. He denied the suggestion that the trouser was not of Chiranji. 26. PW-5-C.P. Sewati Lal. He proved the registration of the FIR at 9.20 am on 10.09.1982 by proving the GD entry thereof and preparation of the Chik FIR. The Chik FIR was exhibited as Ex. Ka-9 and GD entry thereof was exhibited as Ex. Ka-10. In his cross examination, PW-5 admitted that in the written report the parentage of the accused was not mentioned therefore he did not make entry of the parentage in the general diary. He denied the suggestion that the parentage of the accused was not disclosed as the identity of the accused was not confirmed. PW-3 stated that that very day there was no other cognizable report made at the police station concerned. He denied the suggestion that the GD entry was kept vacant to adjust the report. On being shown Ex. Ka-9, PW-5 stated that the report was received in the court by magistrate on 13.09.1982. 27. PW-6-Ramphal Singh Tyagi -Investigating Officer. PW-6 stated that on 10.09.1982 he was posted at Sahkari Nagar Chowki. The investigation of this case was marked to him. He started investigation on that very day and recorded the statement of Dharamvir and Kundan as well as others and made inspection of the spot and prepared site plan, which was exhibited as Ex. Ka-11. PW-6 stated that the accused were arrested on that very day. The investigation of this case was marked to him. He started investigation on that very day and recorded the statement of Dharamvir and Kundan as well as others and made inspection of the spot and prepared site plan, which was exhibited as Ex. Ka-11. PW-6 stated that the accused were arrested on that very day. PW-6 stated that he conducted investigation upto 11.09.1982 and thereafter the investigation of the case was taken over by Harnandan Singh, Inspector, Chandpur. PW-6 stated that the investigation of the case was completed by 09.11.1982 and charge sheet was submitted by Harnandan Singh whose signature he could recognise. The charge sheet was exhibited as Ex. Ka-12. During his cross examination, PW-6 stated that the case was not registered in his presence but in the presence of Harnandan. PW-6 stated that the informant had arrived on a police jeep with Harnandan at his Chowki at about 10 am. At the Chowki, the informant’s statement was recorded and he was there at the Chowki for about an hour. He denied the suggestion that the statement of the informant was not recorded by the Inspector because by then the report was not lodged. PW-6 stated that he left the chowki at about 11 am and reached the informant’s house by 11.30 am where a large number of people had already gathered and, in front of the Baithak, on a cot the body of Chiranji was lying. In paragraph 4, PW-6 stated that he had not recorded the statement of Rajvir, Sukkha, Badiya, Tota, Nauvat and Nanakchand but had recorded the statement of Raghuvir and Bundu. PW-6 stated that neither he had recorded the statement of Master Rajendra Singh nor he ascertained whether he was running a Montessori school. PW-6 stated that the site plan was prepared by him. In paragraph 6, PW-6 stated that Kundan (PW-2) had not informed him as to why Master Rajendra Singh did not want Chiranji to continue in the school. In paragraph 6 of his statement, PW-6 stated that PW-2 had not informed him that there were 3-4 knots of the trouser tied on the neck of Chiranji and that PW-2 had also not informed him that his son had brought the trouser from the spot to the house. He denied the suggestion that the investigation was carried out in collusion with the informant, the village Pradhan and the father of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that the investigation was carried out in collusion with the informant, the village Pradhan and the father of the deceased. Statement of the accused-appellants under section 313 CrPC 28. Both the appellants denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and claimed that the witnesses of fact are of same family; that they are supporter of Pradhan Harish Chandra; they have a chak road dispute with Harish Chandra; there is village party bandi and, therefore, they have been falsely implicated. No defence evidence was led. ANALYSIS 29. Having noticed the rival submissions and the entire prosecution evidence, before we proceed to evaluate the same in the context of the submissions made, there are certain features in the prosecution evidence in respect whereof no suggestions were put to the prosecution witnesses to refute there existence. These are:- (i) The defence has not questioned, by way of suggestions, that the deceased was killed at about 6.00 am on 10.09.1982 in the field of Udayveer; and that from there the body was brought to deceased’s house where inquest was held. (ii) There is no suggestion to the investigating officer with regard to him not conducting spot inspection and preparing site plan (Ex. Ka11), which disclosed that the standing crop in the field was disturbed by drag marks. Further, there is no suggestion to PW-1 and PW-2 in respect of there being no light and they being not able to notice and follow the drag marks to reach the spot where the body was lying. (iii) There is no suggestion put to PW-2 to refute his deposition that the deceased Chiranji was a student of a Montessori school of which Rajendra Master was a Principal. (iv) There is no suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that Dharmo was not sister of the accused persons. (v) Further, there is no challenge to the prosecution evidence that the house of the deceased was adjoining the house of the accused. 30. Bearing in mind the aforesaid undisputed features in the prosecution evidence, we now proceed to evaluate the evidence led by the prosecution in the context of the submissions made. (v) Further, there is no challenge to the prosecution evidence that the house of the deceased was adjoining the house of the accused. 30. Bearing in mind the aforesaid undisputed features in the prosecution evidence, we now proceed to evaluate the evidence led by the prosecution in the context of the submissions made. The thrust of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants can broadly be divided into following categories:- (a) that there is no cogent motive for the crime; (b) that the facts and circumstances of the case suggest that when the body of the deceased was discovered in the morning, on the basis of guess-work and strong suspicion the story was contrived which is evident from the following circumstances:- (i) that the FIR appears ante-timed; (ii) that the ocular account of the deceased being strangulated with the aid of his own trouser is not corroborated by medical evidence. (iii) that there is improvement in the ocular account, inasmuch as, neither in the FIR nor in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC presence of a country made pistol in the hand of Rajpal is disclosed, whereas during the course of trial, to justify as to why the witnesses, despite their presence, did not intervene, a country made pistol in the hand of accused Rajpal has been disclosed. (iv) there appears, contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 as regards who brought the trouser from the field to the place where the body was kept at the time of inquest. PW-1 stated that the trouser was left in the field and was brought by a constable, whereas PW-2 stated that it was his son who had picked up the trouser from the spot. All of this would suggest that the story of strangulation with the aid of trouser is an afterthought. Otherwise also, where was the occasion to untie the knots of the trouser, separate it from the body and carry the body away from the spot. All of this would suggest that the prosecution story is contrived. 31. On the issue that there is no motive for the crime, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution story is that the deceased Chiranji had teased the accused appellants’ sister Dharmo and, therefore, the accused appellants killed him. All of this would suggest that the prosecution story is contrived. 31. On the issue that there is no motive for the crime, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution story is that the deceased Chiranji had teased the accused appellants’ sister Dharmo and, therefore, the accused appellants killed him. It has been submitted that there is no clear evidence of the date and time when the deceased had teased the sister of the accused appellants. The prosecution evidence in this regard, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, is vague and indefinite. Other than that, the age of Dharmo reflected in the statement of the prosecution witnesses of fact appears to be about 10 years. At that young age, it is unacceptable that a girl would be eyed with an ulterior motive. The prosecution story therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, is based on imagination and it does affect the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 32. In this regard, we may observe that this is a case based on ocular evidence. In a case based on ocular evidence, if the court finds the ocular account truthful and reliable, the existence or non existence of motive for the crime has little relevance. No doubt, while evaluating the prosecution evidence and testing the truthfulness of the prosecution case on the weight of probabilities, the entire case has to be considered and, therefore, the motive may assume importance, particularly, where there is a doubt. But, we should not be unmindful of the fact that motive is a mental state of which the person whose conduct is in question is the sole repository. It is difficult to assess whether the motive is sufficient or not for the crime in issue. In the instant case, on the issue of motive for the crime, what is relevant is that the prosecution through the testimony of PW-2 has been able to establish that in the house of Leela Singh (father of the accused appellants) a Montessori school was being run by one Rajendra Master. In that school, the deceased Chiranji was a student of Class-V. Rajendra Master had complained about the conduct of the deceased and upon intervention of PW-2, he was taken out of that school. In that school, the deceased Chiranji was a student of Class-V. Rajendra Master had complained about the conduct of the deceased and upon intervention of PW-2, he was taken out of that school. The testimony of PW-2 in this regard cannot be doubted as nothing much could come out during cross examination to doubt his deposition in this regard. Another key feature in the prosecution evidence is that the house of Leela Singh, whose daughter was Dharmo, was adjoining the house of the deceased. Notably, when PW-2 was questioned as to why he did not take the name of Dharmo in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, in paragraph 7 of his statement in court, like a responsible citizen of the society, PW-2 stated that he did not disclose the name of Dharmo, because to guard reputation of a girl some disclosures are not to be made, but, when he was called upon to make the disclosure that disclosure was made. PW-2 stated that truth of the matter is that Chiranji had teased Dharmo. Notably, PW-2 was also questioned as to why he had not made a disclosure that in the house of Rajpal a Montessori school was being run. He stated that that omission was due to inadvertence but he had informed the I.O. that Rajendra Master, who managed the school, was questioned by PW-2 as to why he would not teach Chiranji (the deceased), in response to which, Rajendra Master told PW-2 that Chiranji had teased Rajpal’s sister Dharmo. He stated that if that was not mentioned, he cannot give a reason for that. What is important here is that assuming that details were not given either in the FIR or in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, but it was very much indicated in the FIR that some time ago Ram Charan had caught Chiranji (the deceased) in the company of his sister and had beaten both his sister as well as Chiranji. What is also important is that there is no specific suggestion to PW-2 that in the house of Leela Singh (the father of the accused appellants) no Montessori school is being run by Rajendra Master or that Chiranji had never studied in that school. Once this is the position, it is not a case where there was no motive for the crime. Once this is the position, it is not a case where there was no motive for the crime. Whether that motive was strong and sufficient is not for the court to guess in a case which is based on ocular account as it is well settled that different persons react differently. We, therefore, reject the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for the crime. 33. Before we proceed further, we shall address the issue raised with regard to the FIR being ante-timed. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants highlihted the following circumstances:- (i) The inquest report (Ex. Ka-3) though mentions the case details (i.e. case crime) in its internal page; and its last page mentions that seven papers comprising nine sheets were sent for autopsy but, interestingly, the copy of the FIR which was mentioned at the back of the inquest report was not forwarded which suggests that it was not in existence at that time. (ii) As per the endorsement in the challan-lash (Ex. Ka-6) the autopsy surgeon received the body on 11.09.1982 at 2.45 pm, whereas he had received the papers on 11.09.1982 at 12.30 pm. If the inquest had been conducted and the body was handed over at 12.50 hours on 10.09.1982 for being sent to the mortuary for autopsy, there was no justification not to send the body that very day, which clearly suggests that the police withheld the body as the papers were not ready and were waiting for the father of the deceased to arrive. (iii) The report under Section 157(3) CrPC, which is to be sent forthwith, as per the statement of PW-5, was received by the concerned Magistrate on 13.09.1982. Not only that, the Circle Officer made an endorsement on the report on 12.09.1982. The Chik FIR suggests that information regarding registration of the case was dispatched from the police station on 11.09.1982. All of this would clearly show that the first information report came into existence on 11.09.1982 after the father of the deceased, who is a police personnel, arrived from Dehradun. The Chik FIR suggests that information regarding registration of the case was dispatched from the police station on 11.09.1982. All of this would clearly show that the first information report came into existence on 11.09.1982 after the father of the deceased, who is a police personnel, arrived from Dehradun. (iv) It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that from the testimony of PW-1 it is clear that the accused were arrested before lodging of the first information report and this, coupled with the above circumstances, clinches the issue and proves beyond doubt that the first information report has been ante-timed. 34. In Meharaj Singh Vs State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188 , it was observed that FIR in a criminal case and particularly in murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. It was observed that delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. It was observed that on account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. After observing as above, in paragraph 12 of the judgment, it was observed as follows:- “12. ...With a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. Prosecution has led no evidence at all in this behalf. Prosecution has led no evidence at all in this behalf. The second external check equally important is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. Even though the inquest report, prepared under Section 174 CrPC, is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante-timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR” In Ram Sanjiwan Singh Vs State of Bihar, (1996) 8 SCC 552 , the Supreme Court held that where the inquest report prepared in the morgue of the hospital and seizure list prepared makes a recital of the criminal case, it may be accepted that the FIR had come into existence. Similarly, in Rajesh Singh Vs State of U.P., (2011) 11 SCC 444 , it was observed that merely because copy of FIR was received in office of Circle Officer on third day, it should not be assumed that the FIR was ante-timed. Further, in Anjanappa Vs State of Karnataka, (2014) 2 SCC 776 , while noticing the decision in Meharaj Singh’s case (supra), the apex court held that sending copy of special report to Magistrate is only an external check on working of police agency imposed by law, which is to be strictly followed. But, that delay, by itself, does not render prosecution case doubtful. Similarly, in Babu and Another Vs State, (2013) 4 SCC 448 , it was held that defective or illegal investigation, if it does not create reasonable doubt on the guilt of accused, cannot be taken as a ground to discard the prosecution case. In light of the decisions noticed above, we are of the view that each case turn on its own facts and there can not be a straight jacket formula to ascertain, by applying time-tested external checks, whether the FIR is ante-timed. 35. In the instant case, the inquest was conducted by PW-4 (Yashvir Singh). In light of the decisions noticed above, we are of the view that each case turn on its own facts and there can not be a straight jacket formula to ascertain, by applying time-tested external checks, whether the FIR is ante-timed. 35. In the instant case, the inquest was conducted by PW-4 (Yashvir Singh). He proved conducting of inquest on 10.09.1982 and also proved preparation of the inquest report, which was exhibited on the basis of his statement. During cross examination, PW-4 stated that after registration of the report, he moved from the police chowki at 11 am and arrived at the spot at 11.30 am. In the column of the challan lash, as to when the body was handed over to the constable, the date and time of handing over is recited as follows:- “10.9.82 at 12.50”, which corroborates the entry in the inquest report. There appears some overwriting over digit ‘5’. Consequently, question was put to PW-4 in respect of the overwriting on the digit ‘5’. He accepted that there was overwriting over digit ‘5’. During cross examination, he was also confronted with Ex. Ka-4 (letter to the Pratisar Nirikshak) and Ex. Ka6 (challan-lash) where the details of the case crime number were not mentioned. He was also confronted with the entries in the inquest report which did not mention the weapon used for strangulation though they disclosed that the deceased was strangulated. Interestingly, no suggestion was put to PW-4:-(a) that the inquest was not conducted on 10.09.1982 at the time shown or that it was conducted on the next date (i.e. 11.09.1982) or that the inquest report was not prepared on 10.09.1982; (b) that there was no FIR by the time the inquest report was prepared; and (c) that the body was dispatched for autopsy not on 10.09.1982, but on the next day. 36. As we have noticed that PW-4 was not given suggestion in respect of preparation of the inquest report on any other day than 10.09.1982 and no suggestion was given to PW-4 that the body was not sealed and handed over to the constable on 10.09.1982 for carrying it to the mortuary, as is entered in the inquest report, one thing is clear that the inquest was conducted on 10.09.1982 and the inquest report was also prepared on 10.09.1982. Once that is the position, what is important to note here is that the inquest report bears the case details i.e. the case crime number and charging section 302 IPC in its internal page. It also contains recital about the name of the person from whom information was received including the time at which it was received which correlates with the time of lodgement of FIR. That apart, in the opinion of inquest witnesses, death was due to strangulation. Thus, from the statement of PW-4 it is established that the inquest was conducted on 10.09.1982 by about 12.50 hrs and the inquest report prepared in connection therewith bears the case details. 37. In the instant case, the constable who made GD entry (Ex. Ka10) of the receipt of the written report and who prepared the Chik report (Ex. Ka-9) was examined as PW-5. He proved GD entry of the receipt of written report and the preparation of the Chik report at 9.20 am on 10.09.1982. During cross examination, this witness was not given any suggestion that the written report was given on the next day (i.e. 11.09.1982). Further, nothing could be elicited from him during cross examination to demonstrate that the FIR is ante-timed. The questions put to PW-5, as would appear from his statement, were: (i) in respect of the GD entry of the written report not bearing the parentage of the accused; (ii) return of the constables Narottam and Bhan Prakash who carried the body for autopsy at quarter to 5 on 11.09.1982 and non mention of the reason for their delay in returning; and (iii) that there was no other report received on that day. In addition to above, PW-5 was questioned in respect of the dates of endorsement made by the Circle Officer and the Magistrate concerned, which were 12.09.1982 and 13.09.1982, respectively. What is interesting here is that no suggestion was put to PW-5 that the GD entry of the written report and the Chik FIR was prepared on any other date or time than mentioned. Thus, from the statement of PW-5 it is established that on 10.09.1982 the written report was received at the police station concerned and was registered at 9.20 am. 38. Thus, from the statement of PW-5 it is established that on 10.09.1982 the written report was received at the police station concerned and was registered at 9.20 am. 38. Once we find that the written report was received at the police station on 10.09.1982 and on 10.09.1982 itself the inquest was conducted and the inquest report prepared, the fact that the inquest report bears the case details would suggest that the first information report had come into existence at the time when the inquest was conducted. As no suggestion has been given to PW-4, the police personnel who conducted the inquest, that the inquest was conducted either on the next day or on any other date or time, in our view, merely on account of lapses on the part of the investigating agency in not forwarding the FIR along with the inquest report, or committing delay of a day or two in giving report to the magistrate concerned, it cannot be held that the first information report is ante-timed. 39. In so far as the statement of PW-1 that the scribe informed him that accused had already reached the police station therefore inclusion of parentage in the written report is not necessary is concerned, it may create an impression that the arrest of the accused was made even before the registration of the first information report. But this is not a clinching circumstance to indicate that the FIR was not lodged on the date and time it is purported to have been lodged. At this stage, we may notice that the I.O. (PW-6) in his deposition had clearly stated that the accused were arrested that very day. In these circumstances, even if the accused were arrested before the formal registration of the first information report, it would not have a material bearing on the issue whether the FIR was registered on the date and time at which it is purported to have been lodged. In fact, the above statement of PW-1 would reflect that PW-1 lodged the first information report without deliberation and as a spontaneous reaction to what he witnessed therefore, he even omitted to mention the parentage of the accused. If this written report had been prepared next day, as suggested by the defence, there would have been ample time for the informant to double check the contents and ensure that the parentage of the accused is mentioned. If this written report had been prepared next day, as suggested by the defence, there would have been ample time for the informant to double check the contents and ensure that the parentage of the accused is mentioned. In our view, therefore, this lapse, as has been pointed by the learned counsel for the defence, does not suggest that the FIR is ante-timed though, it may suggest that the accused were arrested even before lodging of the first information report. In addition to above, we notice that the seizure memorandum (Ex.Ka-8), which was prepared on 10.09.1982 itself, at the time of inquest, recites the case crime number. In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered view that the FIR had come into existence on 10.09.1982. 40. Now, we shall proceed to evaluate the ocular account rendered by PW-1 and PW-2. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants to question the credibility of the ocular account are three fold:- First, that it is an open field where the deceased was killed, away from the abadi and therefore the presence of the eye witnesses is not natural. There thus appears a strong possibility that in the morning when the disturbed crops were noticed in the field, the witnesses travelled the length of the disturbed crop to discover the body and, thereafter, weaved the story. Second, the story set up by the prosecution does not inspire confidence because if the accused had desired to finish off the deceased why they would use deceased’s trouser to strangulate him and not the gun which they were carrying, as is alleged by the witnesses. Third, if the deceased had gone to defecate, his large intestine would not have been found loaded with faecal matter. 41. In addition to above, the defence counsel has also attacked the credibility of the ocular account by submitting that there has been an improvement therein by showing the presence of country made pistol in the hand of Rajpal of which there is no mention in the FIR. 42. In so far as the presence of the eye witnesses are concerned, it is a common practice in villages, particularly, 40 years ago, when facilities of toilets were not there, that to attend to nature’s call, villagers used to go to the fields. 42. In so far as the presence of the eye witnesses are concerned, it is a common practice in villages, particularly, 40 years ago, when facilities of toilets were not there, that to attend to nature’s call, villagers used to go to the fields. Normally, when a person attends to nature’s call, he maintains some distance from the other, even though, they may have gone together to attend to nature’s call. The eye witnesses account in this regard is that the eye witnesses as well as the deceased had gone to the fields to attend to nature’s call and during this process the witnesses heard shrieks of the deceased. It is at that stage that the witnesses saw the accused strangulating the deceased with the aid of his trouser and when the witnesses tried to intervene, the accused threatened the witnesses that they would be shot if they intervened. This part of the story is consistent throughout right from the stage of the first information report upto the deposition of witnesses during the course of trial. No doubt, in the first information report there is no mention of a country made pistol in the hand of accused Rajpal but since there is a statement in the FIR with regard to extension of threat that if the witnesses intervene, they would be shot, it would, by itself, suggest that Rajpal had a weapon. It is not the requirement of law that the first information report discloses each and every detail. It is well settled that a first information report is not an encyclopaedia. In these circumstances, merely because the presence of country made pistol in the hand of Rajpal is not disclosed in the FIR, the ocular account cannot be discarded on the ground that in the deposition there is improvement that there was a country made pistol in the hand of Rajpal. In so far as the presence of the eye witnesses is concerned, we would have to bear in mind the common and usual practice in the villages. As per our understanding with regard to which there would hardly be a dispute, ordinarily, nature’s call is attended early morning, particularly, in the villages as in those olden days toilets were not there and, therefore, to avoid public shame, people used to leave early morning to go to the fields. As per our understanding with regard to which there would hardly be a dispute, ordinarily, nature’s call is attended early morning, particularly, in the villages as in those olden days toilets were not there and, therefore, to avoid public shame, people used to leave early morning to go to the fields. As this activity is at a large scale, members of same families, who live together, move together and squat at some distance from each other to attend to nature’s call. Thus, the presence of the other family members at some distance from the deceased while they were attending nature’s call is not unnatural or improbable to discard the ocular account as being rendered by a person who was not present. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that from the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 it appears that they reached the spot by noticing the disturbed crop and not by witnessing the incident is not acceptable because the ocular account is in two parts. The first part is of the deceased raising alarm and of the witnesses reaching the spot to witness the accused having tied the trouser of the deceased around his neck and the second part of the ocular account is with regard to extension of threats, when the witnesses tried to intervene, and of the deceased being pulled away/ dragged with the aid of his trouser noosed around his neck. When we divide the ocular account into these two parts, we notice that in the first part the witnesses saw the accused having tied the trouser of the deceased around his neck and in the second part the witnesses saw the deceased being dragged into the standing crop by the accused by pulling the trouser noosed around his neck. There is a third part too, which is, that when other villagers arrived at the spot, the witnesses reached the spot by tracking the disturbed crop to find the deceased lying dead with the trouser noosed around his neck. 43. The above ocular account is corroborated by the medical evidence on two counts. First, there appears abrasion on the chest/abdomen region and the knees suggesting that the deceased was dragged in a prone position; and second, there was abraded contusion on the front of the neck. 43. The above ocular account is corroborated by the medical evidence on two counts. First, there appears abrasion on the chest/abdomen region and the knees suggesting that the deceased was dragged in a prone position; and second, there was abraded contusion on the front of the neck. At this stage, we may notice the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants questioning the ocular account in the context of the medical evidence available on the record. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is complete absence of ligature mark on the neck and from the testimony of the autopsy surgeon it appears that the abraded contusion found on the front of the neck of the deceased was from a hard blunt object. 44. Before we proceed to test the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be useful to notice the law as to when an ocular account is to be discarded on the strength of medical evidence. In Thaman Kumar vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380 , in paragraph 16, it was observed as follows: "16. The conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence can be of varied dimensions and shapes. There may be a case where there is total absence of injuries which are normally caused by a particular weapon. There is another category where though the injuries found on the victim are of the type which are possible by the weapon of assault, but the size and dimension of the injuries do not exactly tally with the size and dimension of the weapon. The third category can be where the injuries found on the victim are such which are normally caused by the weapon of assault but they are not found on that portion of the body where they are deposed to have been caused by the eye-witnesses. The same kind of inference cannot be drawn in the three categories of apparent conflict in oral and medical evidence enumerated above. In the first category it may legitimately be inferred that the oral evidence regarding assault having been made from a particular weapon is not truthful. However, in the second and third category no such inference can straightway be drawn. In the first category it may legitimately be inferred that the oral evidence regarding assault having been made from a particular weapon is not truthful. However, in the second and third category no such inference can straightway be drawn. The manner and method of assault, the position of the victim, the resistance offered by him, the opportunity available to the witnesses to see the occurrence like their distance, presence of light and many other similar factors will have to be taken into consideration in judging the reliability of ocular testimony." 45. In Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 , view taken earlier, in Punjab Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1984 Supp SCC 233, that, (1) if direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable, the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence, and (2) if medical evidence when properly read shows two alternative possibilities but not any inconsistency, the one consistent with the reliable and satisfactory statements of the eye witness has to be accepted, was affirmed. Similarly, in Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259 , the legal position, in this regard, has been crystallised, in paragraph 39 of the judgment, as follows: "39. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis--vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved." 46. The above view has been affirmed in Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayyum and others, (2019) 12 SCC 1 . 47. Bearing in mind the legal principles noticed above, reverting to the present case, here, the autopsy surgeon was shown the trouser (Ex. C-1), which was used as a weapon of assault. The above view has been affirmed in Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayyum and others, (2019) 12 SCC 1 . 47. Bearing in mind the legal principles noticed above, reverting to the present case, here, the autopsy surgeon was shown the trouser (Ex. C-1), which was used as a weapon of assault. He admitted the possibility of injury no.1 (abraded contusion on the front of the neck) as a consequence of noose being tied around the neck of the deceased from that trouser and he also accepted the possibility that if a tied noose is pressed on the neck and a person is dragged, injury of such kind may be found. Once the possibility of that injury in the manner alleged by the ocular account is accepted by the medical evidence, in the light of the legal principles noticed above, the ocular account is not to be discarded as being in conflict with the medical evidence. In so far as the absence of ligature mark around the neck is concerned, it be noticed that in Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Edition 24, at page 452) it is mentioned that in some cases, the ligature mark in the neck may not be present at all, or may be very slight, if the ligature used is soft and yielding like a stocking or scarf, and if it is removed soon after death. 48. In the instant case, the trouser is a nylon trouser. Nylon by its very nature is extendible. Further, according to the ocular account, the witnesses following the disturbed crop arrived contemporaneously with the event at the spot, and untied the knots of the trouser. In these circumstances, absence of ligature mark is not a clinching circumstance to discard the ocular account. 49. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the statement of the witnesses that they reached the spot by noticing the track marks and the disturbed crop would suggest that they were not there on the spot, in our view, is not acceptable because, as we have already noticed, according to the ocular account, when the witnesses were threatened, they kept a distance from the accused and the deceased and during this time, the accused had dragged the deceased into the standing crop. It is only when more villagers arrived, the witnesses reached the spot where the body was lying by tracking drag marks and the disturbed crop, therefore, on this ground, the ocular account is not rendered untrustworthy. 50. The other submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there appears material contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 as regards the collection of the trouser from the spot. According to PW-1 the trouser was collected by the constable, whereas according to PW-2 the trouser was collected by PW-2’s son from the spot. In our view, this minor contradiction in the testimony of the two witnesses is of no consequence. It is possible that PW-1 may not have noticed as to who collected the trouser from the spot, may be on account of being in a state of shock whereas, PW-2 may have noticed that his son had picked up the trouser and got it to the place where the body of the deceased was kept after being lifted from the open field. Therefore, in our view, this discrepancy in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 has no material bearing on the substratum of the prosecution case. 51. In view of the discussion above, as we have already noticed that there is no suggestion to eye witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 that it was completely dark, bearing in mind that the incident is of September 10, 1982, at 6.00 a.m., even if the sun is not out and shining, there would be light of dawn, we are of the considered view that the ocular account is trustworthy and reliable and the trial court committed no mistake in accepting the same and finding the charge against the accused appellants proved. 52. At this stage, we may notice the alternative submission made on behalf of the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that if we assume the prosecution story as correct, the accused had a firearm which they could have used to kill the deceased but they chose not to use the same. They might have dragged the deceased with the aid of his trouser with a view to teach him a lesson for having relations with their sister. They might have dragged the deceased with the aid of his trouser with a view to teach him a lesson for having relations with their sister. It is quite possible that in that process the injury found on the neck might have been caused but there was no intention to cause death of the deceased and there was no intention to cause any such injury which was likely to cause death of the deceased therefore, the case would not travel beyond Section 304 IPC. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that noticeably except for the abrasions, which could be co-related to dragging, no other injury is found on the body to suggest that the accused had physically assaulted the deceased with kicks and fists and, thereafter, strangulated him. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that even if the ocular account is accepted, it is a simple case of tying a knot around the neck and pulling the deceased with a view to teach him a lesson. Hence, the conviction of the appellants for the charge of murder with the aid of section 34 IPC is not sustainable. 53. We have given our anxious consideration to the alternative submission. Upon a careful perusal of the autopsy report, we notice that there was internal damage also. The hyoid bone was found fractured. There was bleeding from both nostrils. First and second tracheal cartilages were also fractured and the right carotid sheath ruptured along with its contents which suggests that there was extraordinary pressure exerted on the neck. Once this is the position, there appears an intention to cause death. No doubt, the accused did have a country made pistol which they did not use but whether that country made pistol was loaded is not known. May be that country made pistol was taken to threaten intervention by others. Otherwise also, as to what was in the mind of the accused is only a matter of conjecture and speculation. What is to be seen is the nature of the injuries inflicted. The injuries inflicted were such that it cannot be an accidental strangulation. As already noticed above, the injuries appeared grievous and reflected an intention to cause death. We, therefore, find no justification to alter the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC. What is to be seen is the nature of the injuries inflicted. The injuries inflicted were such that it cannot be an accidental strangulation. As already noticed above, the injuries appeared grievous and reflected an intention to cause death. We, therefore, find no justification to alter the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC. Consequently, and for all the reasons detailed above, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody forthwith and shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court. 54. Let a copy of this order be certified to the court below along with the record for information and compliance.