JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. By this Criminal Appeal appellants are challenging their conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hinganghat in Sessions Case No. 55/2017, dated 24.09.2018. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge found that the prosecution has proved that both the appellants have committed murder of Kamlakar Khadse on 25.08.2014. Therefore, the learned Judge has recorded finding of guilt against them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After finding them guilty for the said offence, the learned Judged has imposed minimum punishment upon them i.e. imprisonment for life and imposed fine amount of Rs.5,000/- with default clause. Hence, this appeal is filed. 2. We have heard Shri Rajendra M. Daga and Shri Mahesh Rai, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. With their able assistance, we have gone through the record and proceedings, the notes of evidence and also numerous documents which were proved during the course of trial. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that in any case appellant no.2 - Sachin Dehane is required to be acquitted looking to the quality of evidence that is brought on record qua him. Of course, it is also their submission that appellant no.1 - Shrikant Bramhane is also entitled for benefit of doubt inasmuch as according to them, Raju Chanekar (PW2) and Rupali Khadse (PW9) in any case cannot be the eye-witnesses. They also submitted that the so called recovery of the weapons from the appellants on memorandum statement is required to be discarded outrightly in view of the admission given by the prosecution witness Raju Chanekar (PW2) that the weapons were shown to him in the police station and those were not sealed at that time. It is also their submission that the Chemical Analyser’s report (Exh.140) cannot be pressed into service as it was used against the appellants by the learned Judge and the incriminating material as found in Exh.140 was not brought to the notice of the appellants when they were examined by the Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, an opportunity of offering explanation in respect of the said incriminating material was denied. It was, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appeal be allowed. 4. Therefore, an opportunity of offering explanation in respect of the said incriminating material was denied. It was, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appeal be allowed. 4. Per contra, Shri Ghodeswar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants. He supported the reasoning given by the learned trial Court. He submitted that in view of the consistent evidence of two eye-witnesses namely Raju Chanekar (PW2) and Rupali Khadse (PW9), the appellant no.1 Srikant has no escape route for his conviction. Insofar as appellant no.2 Sachin is concerned, he pressed into service evidence of Rupali (PW9) and submitted that if the evidence of Rupali is accepted, then appellant no.2 is also not having any case. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 5. This prosecution case has its start in the report (Exh.51), which was given by Raju Chanekar (PW2). When Raju Chanekar had been to Police Station, Hinganghat on 25.08.2014 at about 9.55 p.m., that time Sunil Zurmure (PW13) was attached to said police station as Police Sub Inspector. He reduced Raju Chanekar’s oral complaint into writing. After recording his oral complaint, PSI Zurmure registered the offence vide Crime No. 366/2014 for the offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant no.1 Shrikant Bramhane and one unknown person. 6. The gist of the report (Exh.51) is as under : i] Deceased Kamlakar was the first informant’s father-in-law and since he was not having any son, he used to stay with him along with his wife. The first informant is having one unmarried sister-in-law i.e. Rupali (PW9). ii] As per the report (Exh.51), on the day of the incident on 25.08.2014, which was the day of ‘Pola’ festival, the first informant came to his house after his work was over, had a bath and then he went outside to participate in ‘Pola’ festival. He came back from the said festival to house. That time he, his mother-in-law, sister-in-law and wife were inside the house, whereas his father-in-law (deceased) was sitting outside the house. iii] The first information report further recites that at about 8.30 in the night, he heard loud shouting “ okpok] okpok ” (save, save). Therefore, the first informant came outside the house. That time he, his mother-in-law, sister-in-law and wife were inside the house, whereas his father-in-law (deceased) was sitting outside the house. iii] The first information report further recites that at about 8.30 in the night, he heard loud shouting “ okpok] okpok ” (save, save). Therefore, the first informant came outside the house. That time he noticed that in an open space, his father-in-law Kamlakar was lying on the ground and two persons were assaulting on him by iron rod. He identified one of the assailants as Shrikant Bramhane (appellant no.1) and another person as having lean personality, whose name was not known to him. The report states that noticing presence of the first informant, both ran away. Thereafter, with the assistance of his friend Santosh Joshi and Kisna Latkar, injured Kamlakar was brought to the Government hospital, where Doctor after examining declared him as dead. 7. After registration of the crime, PSI Sunil Zurmure went to the spot of the incident along with the first informant. The spot of the incident is an open space in Indira Gandhi ward at Hinganghat. The spot was shown by the first informant to PSI Zurmure. Thereafter, PSI Zurmure called two panchas and prepared the spot panchanama, the spot shown by the first informant. The spot panchanama is duly proved by panch witness Ranjit Bele (PW1). It is at Exh.47. 8. On the next day of the incident i.e. 26.08.2014, PSI Zurmure conducted inquest on the dead body at Sub District Hospital, Hinganghat in presence of panchas. The inquest panchanama is at Exh.63. After conducting inquest, a request was made to the Doctor for conducting post mortem. Accordingly, the post mortem was also conducted. From this point, further investigation was carried out by API Vijay Naik (PW14) as per the directions of the Police Station Officer. 9. API Vijay Naik (PW14), after receipt of the case diary of Crime No. 366/2014, again recorded the statement of the first informant on 26.08.2014. As the name of appellant no.2 Sachin surfaced in the first informant’s supplementary statement, he made search for both the accused. API Naik seized the sealed bundle of clothes of the deceased, sealed viscera, sealed blood samples etc. under the seizure memo Exh.118. 10. On 26.08.2014, after search, both the appellants were brought to the police station. As the name of appellant no.2 Sachin surfaced in the first informant’s supplementary statement, he made search for both the accused. API Naik seized the sealed bundle of clothes of the deceased, sealed viscera, sealed blood samples etc. under the seizure memo Exh.118. 10. On 26.08.2014, after search, both the appellants were brought to the police station. In presence of the panchas, API Naik seized the clothes i.e. pant, shirt and chappal of appellant no.1 by preparing arrest panchanama cum seizure panchanama (Exh.57). He found blood like stains on the clothes and chappal of appellant no.1. He also prepared arrest cum seizure panchanama in presence of two panchas in respect of appellant no.2 Sachin, under which his clothes and chappal having blood stains were seized. The said arrest panchanama is at Exh.58. After the arrest, Investigating Officer gave required intimation to their close relatives. He also seized a Tata Sumo vehicle, which was used by both of them for absconding after commission of the offence, under seizure panchanama (Exh.78). He also collected the blood samples of both the appellants by giving necessary requisition for extracting their blood samples. They were seized under seizure memo (Exh.95). 11. During their police custody remand, both the appellants gave their respective disclosure statements. On 29.08.2014, memorandum statement of appellant no.1 Shrikant was recorded in presence of panch witness Wasudeo Ujawane (PW8). Also on the very same day, memorandum statement of appellant no.2 Sachin was recorded in presence of panch witness Wasudeo Ujawane (PW8). The admissible portion of the memorandum statement of appellant no.1 is at Exh.125, whereas the admissible portion of the memorandum statement of appellant no.2 is at Exh.127. After recording the respective statements, both the appellants led the police party to two different places, where the weapons were concealed. At the behest of appellant no.1 Shrikant, an iron rod having blood like stains were seized. The same was recovered under panchanama (Exh.126). Similarly, at the behest of appellant no.2 Sachin, a wooden stick having blood like stains was also recovered and it was seized under panchanama (Exh.128). API Naik sent the muddemal property to the Chemical Analyser. After completion of other usual investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. 12. The same was recovered under panchanama (Exh.126). Similarly, at the behest of appellant no.2 Sachin, a wooden stick having blood like stains was also recovered and it was seized under panchanama (Exh.128). API Naik sent the muddemal property to the Chemical Analyser. After completion of other usual investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. 12. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate, in whose Court the Challan was presented by the Investigating Officer, found that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After committal, it was registered as Sessions Case No. 188/2014, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha framed the Charge at Exh.35 against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the time of recording their plea, both the appellants abjured their guilt and claimed for trial. 13. The prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses to bring home the guilt of both the appellants. It also relied upon numerous documents those were proved during the course of trial. It would be useful to mention here that after recording the evidence of some witnesses, a Sessions Court was established at Hinganghat. Therefore, the case of the appellants was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hinganghat and the case was renumbered from Sessions Case No. 188/2014 to Sessions Case No. 55/2017 and further evidence was recorded by the said learned Judge. After appreciating the entire evidence as available on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hinganghat has passed the impugned judgment. 14. From the material which was brought on record during the course of trial, it is clear that the prosecution is relying upon ocular as well as scientific evidence for securing conviction of both the appellants. Out of 14 witnesses examined by the prosecution, two are the eye-witnesses namely Raju Chanekar (PW2) and Rupali Khadse (PW9). PW1 Ranjit Bele is the panch witness who has proved the spot panchanama. PW3 Kishor Dudhane and PW4 Kailash Hajare have turned hostile. Those were examined to prove certain seizures. PW5 is Chandrakant Pimpalshende, in whose presence, clothes of accused persons were seized. PW6 is Vijay Shende, a panch, who has turned hostile. PW7 is Omprakash @ Santosh Joshi, who is having his residence nearby the spot of the incident and he noticed the presence of eye-witnesses on the spot. Those were examined to prove certain seizures. PW5 is Chandrakant Pimpalshende, in whose presence, clothes of accused persons were seized. PW6 is Vijay Shende, a panch, who has turned hostile. PW7 is Omprakash @ Santosh Joshi, who is having his residence nearby the spot of the incident and he noticed the presence of eye-witnesses on the spot. PW8 Wasudeo Ujawane, a pancha, also turned hostile. PW10 Bhausaheb Bochare is a Police Constable and he is a carrier, who carried muddemal property from Police Station to the office of the Chemical Analyser. PW11 is Dr. Ashwini Fulkar, who conducted post mortem. PW12 is Umang Masram, a Police Constable, who collected the blood samples of both the accused persons from the hospital. PW13 PSI Sunil Zurmure and PW14 API Vijay Naik, are the Investigating Officer who conducted investigation of the crime. 15. Dr. Ashwini Fulkar (PW11) was the Medical Officer at Sub District Hospital, Hinganghat on 26.08.2014. On the said day, Dr. Fulkar conducted post mortem on the dead body of Kamlakar. In the post mortem, following external injuries were found : i] Deep penetrating injury present below lower lip on face. The injury was irregular in shape admeasuring 6 x 5 x 5 cm. Injury extend from upper lip to the chin. I found bleeding was present in the said injury. ii] Deep penetrating injury over sub-mandibular part, irregular in shape, admeasuring 2 x 2.5 x 5 cm throughout injury mandible was seen. Bleeding was present in the injury. iii] Deep contusion present over the scalp in middle of forehead. Contusion admeasuring 4 x 3 cm. On internal examination, the Autopsy Surgeon found deep lacerated wound on the scalp admeasuring 4 x 0.5 x 1 cm over temporo occipital region. On opening of scalp, Doctor Ashwini found fracture on scalp wound. Fracture was present in temporo occipital region admeasuring 5 x 2 x 0.5 cm. Cut section of brain was pale due to excess bleeding. As per the Autopsy Surgeon, all the injuries were ante mortem and as per the observations, it was the opinion of the Surgeon that the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest, due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of head injury. Accordingly, the Autopsy Surgeon proved the post mortem report (Exh.82). 16. As per the Autopsy Surgeon, all the injuries were ante mortem and as per the observations, it was the opinion of the Surgeon that the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest, due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of head injury. Accordingly, the Autopsy Surgeon proved the post mortem report (Exh.82). 16. Though, very lengthy cross-examination was conducted of the Autopsy Surgeon by two learned cross-examiners, in our view, there is nothing to show or suggest that the death of Kamlakar was not unnatural. From the evidence and the findings noted in the post mortem report, we are not having a slightest doubt in our mind to record a finding that death of Kamlakar was not only unnatural, but it was homicidal one. 17. After recording the finding about nature of death, this Court is required to answer as to who are the authors for the injuries caused to the deceased resulted into his death. According to the prosecution, the appellants are the authors for the injuries as noticed during the post mortem, whereas as per the defence version they are falsely implicated. 18. We have already observed in the preceding paragraph that there are two eye-witnesses. They are son-in-law and daughter of the deceased. Only because they are the close relatives of the deceased, that by itself their testimony does not earn disqualification, neither the Courts should view their evidence with tainted glasses. They are the witnesses like the other natural witnesses. The only caveat is that while appreciating the evidence of relatives or close witnesses of the deceased, the Court should be on guard to see that falsity or exaggeration is not creeping in their testimony. If it is found by the Court that their evidence is trustworthy and inspires confidence, then it will be always open for the Courts to record a finding of the guilt though such witnesses are close relatives of the deceased. 19. Keeping the above settled law in mind, let us appreciate the evidence of both the eye-witnesses. 20. From PW2 Raju Chanekar’s evidence, it is clear that he used to stay along with his father-in-law and his wife. He has ascribed the reason as to why he was required to stay with the father-in-law namely, his father-in-law was not having any son and apart from the first informant’s wife, one unmarried sister-in-law was there. 20. From PW2 Raju Chanekar’s evidence, it is clear that he used to stay along with his father-in-law and his wife. He has ascribed the reason as to why he was required to stay with the father-in-law namely, his father-in-law was not having any son and apart from the first informant’s wife, one unmarried sister-in-law was there. His evidence is not challenged before us that his presence is not natural in the house of his father-in-law. 21. Evidence of Raju Chanekar (PW2) is tried to be assailed as it could been seen from the line of his cross-examination on the ground that he being the registered Clerk of a lawyer at Hinganghat city, he has been introduced by the prosecution with a purpose. From his evidence, he did state that prior to the incident, he used to work as a Clerk of Shri Vyas, Advocate at Hinganghat. Avocation in life is a different thing and to be a witness in a case is altogether different thing. It will be too harsh to make any observation that merely because Raju Chanekar (PW2) was used to work as a Clerk with an Advocate, he has a tendency to introduce falsity, especially except that fact that he was a Clerk of an Advocate, nothing is brought on record to show that he was having any malice, interest or reason to rope the accused persons in the crime. 22. In this prosecution case, the report was lodged immediately after the commission of the crime. Prompt lodgment of the report with the police has its own importance. Lodgment of the report at the earliest without loosing precious time always rules out the embellishment and introduction of the case against the person, who was not present on the spot. From the printed first information report (Exh.52), it is clear that the date and time of the occurrence was 25.08.2014 at 20.30 hours and the information was received at police station at 21.55 hours on 25.08.2014. The distance between the spot of the incident and the police station is 2 kilometers. All this cumulatively show that first informant Raju Chanekar did not lose any time in reporting the matter to the police station. The distance between the spot of the incident and the police station is 2 kilometers. All this cumulatively show that first informant Raju Chanekar did not lose any time in reporting the matter to the police station. In addition to that, there is noting to show that prior to lodging the report he had deliberations with anybody, though it is stated that when he reached to the police station for lodging the report, he was accompanied by his mother-in-law and Rupali (PW9). From the first information report, it is clear that the day of the incident was a day of ‘Pola’ festival and after participating in ‘Pola’ festival, Raju came back to the house and was inside the house along with his mother-in-law, his wife and sister-in-law. At that time, as per the report, Kamlakar (deceased) was sitting outside. The report states that at 8.30 p.m., he heard shouts in loud manner as ^^okpok] okpok^^ (save, save). Therefore, Raju (PW2) immediately came outside the house. That time he noticed that in an open space, his father-in-law was lying on the ground and two persons were assaulting on him by means of iron rod. Out of them, Raju identified one as Shrikant (appellant No.1). The report states that his companion was a boy of having lean personality and his name was not known to him. Thus, it is clear that in the first information report, he not only identified the appellant no.1, but he also named him as Shrikant Bramhane. 23. In the substantive evidence, Raju Chanekar (PW2) has deposed before the Court that he heard the shouts of his sister-in-law Rupali (PW9) as ^^ckckyk okpok] ckckyk okpok^^ (save father, save father) and when he came outside, he noticed Shrikant (appellant no.1) and Sachin (appellant no.2) assaulting on the deceased. 24. From the evidence of Rupali Khadse (PW9), it is also crystal clear that she shouted ^^ckckyk okpok] ckckyk okpok^^ and thereafter Raju (PW2) stepped outside the house. According to the learned counsel for the appellants ^^ckckyk okpok] ckckyk okpok^^ is a proved omission. It is, therefore, submitted that Raju (PW2) is not an eye-witness inasmuch as he came outside the house after hearing the shouts of his sister-in-law and in the light of proved to be an omission, it is rather risky to catalog Raju Chanekar (PW2) as an eyewitness. 25. It is, therefore, submitted that Raju (PW2) is not an eye-witness inasmuch as he came outside the house after hearing the shouts of his sister-in-law and in the light of proved to be an omission, it is rather risky to catalog Raju Chanekar (PW2) as an eyewitness. 25. We are afraid to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. In the report (Exh.51), what Raju (PW2) stated was that when he was inside the house, he heard shouts ^^okpok] okpok^^ , which means ‘save, save’. In the substantive, what is deposed by this witness is he heard shouts as ^^ckckyk okpok] ckckyk okpok^^ (‘save father, save father’), meaning thereby father to be saved. Thus, ^^okpok] okpok^^ is not at all an omission and the omission would be only “ ckckyk ” (to father). From the evidence of Raju (PW2) it is clear that he has not stated anything more than what he has stated in the report about the actual assault. Of course, in the first information report, name of appellant no.2 was not taken, whereas in the substantive evidence, it is deposed by him that he noticed that appellant no.2 was also assaulting. We will be discussing regarding that aspect in the later part of this judgment, however, there is no omission, contradiction or exaggeration whatsoever in nature in respect of appellant no.1 Shrikant, in the substantive evidence of Raju (PW2). 26. Evidence of Rupali Khadse (PW9) corroborates the assault as disclosed by Raju (PW2) on her father by appellant no.1 Shrikant. In her evidence, it is stated that when she came outside the house to give a call to her father for dinner, that time she noticed that her father was going towards TV Tower and that time two persons namely both the appellants, who are resident of her locality and know them well, assaulted on him. The role attributed to appellant no.1 by Rupali (PW9) is that he assaulted by means of iron rod, whereas appellant no.2 assaulted by a stick. According to her evidence, she shouted “ ckckyk okpok] ckckyk okpok ” and hearing her shouts, Raju (PW2) came outside the house and they both ran towards the deceased. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that Rupali shouted “ ckckyk okpok] ckckyk okpok ”. When she shouted, Raju was inside the house. According to her evidence, she shouted “ ckckyk okpok] ckckyk okpok ” and hearing her shouts, Raju (PW2) came outside the house and they both ran towards the deceased. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that Rupali shouted “ ckckyk okpok] ckckyk okpok ”. When she shouted, Raju was inside the house. It is possible that Raju must have heard only ^^okpok] okpok^^ Therefore, though there is omission of word ^^ckckyk^^ in the evidence of Raju (PW2), the said omission is very minor in nature and will not have any impact on the prosecution case. 27. The spot panchanama is at Exh.47. Along with the spot panchanama, a map is drawn, which shows that the house of the deceased is about 300 feet away from the spot of the incident and in between the house of the informant and Rupali (PW9) and the spot of the incident, there is no obstacle whatsoever in nature by which it could be said that the vision is impaired or it is impossible for a person to notice anything what is happening on the spot of the incident from their house. In addition to that, in the spot of the incident as well as in the sketch map drawn in the spot panchanama, existence of electric pole is shown. In this context, evidence of Rupali (PW9) reads as under : “…… there are electric lights. In that light, I saw both the accused.” Thus, though the time of the occurrence was in the night, the spot of the incident was well illuminated and therefore, from the evidence as well as from the spot panchanama, it is clear that the vision cannot get impaired or obstructed. It is quite possible rather it must have seen by not only Rupali (PW9), but also by Raju (PW2) about the assault on their near and dear. From the evidence of Raju (PW2) and Rupali (PW9), we are of the view that definitely appellant no.1 Shrikant was the person who had assaulted on the deceased by means of weapon i.e. iron rod on his head. 28. After recording a finding in respect of appellant no.1, let us scrutinize the prosecution evidence as to whether the prosecution has proved its case against appellant no.2 Sachin beyond reasonable doubt. 29. 28. After recording a finding in respect of appellant no.1, let us scrutinize the prosecution evidence as to whether the prosecution has proved its case against appellant no.2 Sachin beyond reasonable doubt. 29. Examination of the first information report (Exh.51) clearly shows that the name of appellant no.2 Sachin was not mentioned in the oral report. Therefore, offence was registered only against appellant no.1 and one another unknown person. According to the evidence of second Investigating Officer API Naik (PW14), when he received the case diary for further investigation from PSI Zurmure on 26.08.2014, he again made enquiry with the first informant and recorded his statement. So it is his supplementary statement and as per the evidence of API Naik, the first informant did state the name of appellant no.2 in his supplementary statement and therefore the record shows that on 26.8.2014, appellant no.2 was also made as an accused. Also as per the evidence of Rupali (PW9) in fact on the day of the incident and at the time of occurrence itself, she had not only noticed presence of appellant no.2, but identified him also as Sachin Dehane. 30. In this case, it is clear that statement of Rupali (PW9) was recorded after a period of 15 days from the date of occurrence. So obviously on 26.8.2014, there was no statement of Rupali (PW9) with the Investigating Officer. What was with the Investigating Officer was the information furnished by the first informant about the name of appellant no.2, whose name was not disclosed by him at the time of recording first information report. Rather, the first information report is very specific that another assailant was having lean physic and whose name was not known to the first informant. In that context, in our view, it was obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to hold the Test Identification Parade. It is a trite law that test identification parade is not a substantive piece of evidence, however it is always beneficial for the Investigating Officer to satisfy himself as to whether the investigation is going on in correct direction. In our view, when the name of the appellant no.2 was not disclosed by the first informant and he only gave the description of his physic, non-conducting and holding of the test identification parade during the course of investigation, has its adverse effect on the prosecution case. In our view, when the name of the appellant no.2 was not disclosed by the first informant and he only gave the description of his physic, non-conducting and holding of the test identification parade during the course of investigation, has its adverse effect on the prosecution case. Further, evidence of API Vijay Naik (PW14) that in the supplementary statement of Raju (PW2) has disclosed the name of appellant no.2 Sachin, is not corroborated by Raju himself. His evidence does not show that on the next day of the incident, he disclosed the name to the Investigating Officer. On the contrary, in his substantive evidence he claims that he saw appellant no.2 as one of the assailants, which totally contrary to the first information report. Non disclosure of the name of a known assailant in the first information report has its serious effect on the prosecution case. In this context, the cross-examination made by the learned counsel for appellant no.2 of Raju (PW2) will have to be reproduced herein below : “13. It is true to say that not remembering the name and not knowing name are two different things. It is true to say that I could have mentioned that though I have not remembering name but I know that person.” In our view, this has its own effect in respect of the quality of the evidence of Raju Chanekar (PW2) qua appellant no.2. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that this prosecution witness knows the difference between two phrases and in spite of that he was required to admit that he did not state to police while recording the first information report that he was knowing the name of appellant no.2, but he did not remember that time. 31. In view of the evidence as brought on record, we have doubt in our mind about the presence of appellant no.2 on the spot at the time of incident. We have also another reason for criticizing the evidence of Raju (PW2) that at the time of evidence he has introduced appellant no.2 Sachin as one of the assailants. 32. Evidence of Raju (PW2) shows that after the assault and after taking the deceased to the hospital, he went to police station for lodging the report. From his evidence as well as evidence of Rupali (PW9), it is clear that Raju Chanekar did not go alone to the police station. 32. Evidence of Raju (PW2) shows that after the assault and after taking the deceased to the hospital, he went to police station for lodging the report. From his evidence as well as evidence of Rupali (PW9), it is clear that Raju Chanekar did not go alone to the police station. At the time of lodging the first information report, it has come on record in the cross-examination of Raju (PW2) that when he went to police station, that time he was accompanied by his motherin- law, his wife and sister-in-law i.e. obviously Rupali (PW9). Not only that, in her cross-examination, Rupalli (PW9) states that she was in police station along with Raju, her mother and her sister i.e. obviously wife of Raju. It would be useful for this Court to reproduce the important admissions given by Raju (PW2) in his cross-examination : 1] It is true to say that when I was narrating the contents of the report, that time my mother-in-law, sister-in-law and my wife were sitting along with me. 2] It is true to say that when I was narrating the contents of the report, my mother-in-law, sister-in-law and my wife were listening. Thus, it is crystal clear that what was stated in the first information report by Raju (PW2) was definitely heard not only by his wife, but by his mother-in-law and his sister-in-law i.e. Rupali (PW9). In the cross-examination, Rupali (PW9) did stated that when Raju was giving the report, she along with her mother and sister were sitting at a distance of 2 feet and she is able to hear the voice from around 10 feet. Thus, it is clear that what was narrated by Raju while narrating the incident, which was reduced into writing by the Investigating Officer as his oral report, was definitely heard by Rupali (PW9). 33. Rupali (PW9) in her evidence has claimed that along with appellant no.1 Shrikant she has also introduced appellant no.2 Sachin as one of the assailants. From her evidence i.e. in her evidence-in-chief itself, she has stated that her statement was recorded after 15 days of the incident. In order to verify the said, when we have perused the record for a limited purpose only to note the date of the statement of Rupali, we noticed that her statement was recorded on 10.09.2014. From her evidence i.e. in her evidence-in-chief itself, she has stated that her statement was recorded after 15 days of the incident. In order to verify the said, when we have perused the record for a limited purpose only to note the date of the statement of Rupali, we noticed that her statement was recorded on 10.09.2014. Thus, Rupali (PW9) was right in her examination-in-chief in deposing that her statement was recorded after 15 days of the incident. 34. It is rather unbelievable that when in presence of Rupali (PW9) her brother-in-law is narrating the incident to the police and stating only the name of appellant no.1 and though it was duly heard by her, she is not intervening at that particular point of time or immediately after recording of the first information report that she has seen not only appellant no.1, but appellant no.2 also as one of the assailants. Keeping mum for a period of 15 days has its own repercussion on the prosecution case. There may be various reasons for recording the statements of eye-witnesses belatedly. It is always open for the Investigating Officer or the witness concerned to offer explanation for giving the police statement belatedly. In this case, investigating officer API Naik was cross-examined at length. This cross-examination was obviously for giving opportunity to the Investigating Officer to offer any explanation, if he is having, for recording the statement of eye-witness belatedly. In paragraph 35 of his deposition, the Investigating Officer states as under : “35. It is true to say that I know that statement of eye witnesses are recorded immediately. It is true to say that it is necessary to mention reason in case of delay in recording statement of eye witnesses. It is true to say that on 25.08.2014, I was at police station, Hinganghat. It is true to say that as I was in police station I came to know about the incident. It is true to say that I investigated the matter regularly till filing of charge-sheet. I recorded the statement of PW-2 Raju Chanekar on 26.08.2014, but today I cannot tell the time when I recorded it. It is true to say that PW-2 Raju had not stated name of accused no.2 at the time of lodging report. It is true to say that I investigated the matter regularly till filing of charge-sheet. I recorded the statement of PW-2 Raju Chanekar on 26.08.2014, but today I cannot tell the time when I recorded it. It is true to say that PW-2 Raju had not stated name of accused no.2 at the time of lodging report. It is true to say that Raju Chanekar was not known the name of accused no.2 at the time of lodging report and also had not stated that he knows accused no.2. It is true to say that at the time of recording of statement of PW-2 Raju Chanekar, he stated that he came to know name of accused no.2 from the rumour in public.” From the aforesaid it is clear that while recording supplementary statement of Raju Chanekar (PW2), he did state that he came to know the name of accused no.2 from the rumour in public. Now it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to record the statements of those persons and it was the duty of the prosecution to examine those persons, who disclosed the name of appellant no.2 Sachin to Raju Chanekar (PW2). However, nothing of that sort has been done in the present case. 35. Insofar as recording statements of wife and daughter of deceased belatedly, the Investigating Officer has stated as under : “It is true to say that I recorded the statement of wife and daughter of deceased on 10.09.2014. It is true to say that I have not mentioned the reason for delay in recording the statements. It is true to say that delay in recording of statement is important thing. It is true to say that important things are to be mentioned in statement or in charge-sheet. It is true to say that I have not mentioned it in charge-sheet and statement.” In this case, the wife of deceased is not examined. Thus, in absence of any explanation offered for recording the police statement of the eye-witness after a period of 15 days, has its own adverse effect on the prosecution case. At this stage, it would be useful to refer the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shahid Khan vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 96 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has disbelieved the statements of PW25 Mirza Majid Beg and PW24 Mohd. At this stage, it would be useful to refer the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shahid Khan vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 96 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has disbelieved the statements of PW25 Mirza Majid Beg and PW24 Mohd. Shakir, which were recorded after three days of the occurrence and no explanation was forthcoming on record for recording their statements belatedly. In this case, the unexplained delay in recording the statement of Rupali (PW9) as well as not recording and examining any witness, who according to the prosecution, has narrated the name of appellant no.2 to Raju Chanekar (PW2), brings the case of the prosecution in dark clouds of doubt qua appellant no.2. In that view of the matter, there is no hesitation in our mind to record a finding that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant no.2 Sachin Dehane. 36. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently submitted that from appellant no.2 there is a recovery of stick on memorandum. After examination of the evidence of Raju (PW2), we have no doubt in our mind to record a finding that the so called recovery on memorandum is nothing but a farcical one. As per the evidence of the Investigating Officer API Vijay Naik (PW14), appellant no.2 gave his memorandum statement, which was recorded in the presence of panch witnesses on 29.8.2014 and the admissible portion is at Exh.127. Though, the panch on the said statement has turned hostile, the said is duly proved by API Naik (PW14). The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Aslam .vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 362 has laid down a law that evidence of the police officer effecting recovery does not stand vitiated by reason of panch witnesses supporting the evidence turning hostile. 37. Though, the memorandum statement and recovery panchanama (Exh.128) is proved by the Investigating Officer, whether that has to be accepted or not is the question. We have seen that the memorandum statement of appellant no.2 Sachin was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 29.08.2014 in between 17.00 hours to 17.20 hours and recovery panchanama (Exh.128) was executed on 29.08.2014 at 18.20 hours. Evidence of Raju Chanekar (PW2) has given the death nail blow to this recovery. We have seen that the memorandum statement of appellant no.2 Sachin was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 29.08.2014 in between 17.00 hours to 17.20 hours and recovery panchanama (Exh.128) was executed on 29.08.2014 at 18.20 hours. Evidence of Raju Chanekar (PW2) has given the death nail blow to this recovery. In his cross-examination, Raju Chanekar (PW2), the first informant, has given admission, which is reproduced herein as under : “It is true to say that I had seen weapons in police station. The weapons were shown by police officer Shri Zurmure. It is true to say that these weapons were shown to me during morning hours on 26.08.2014. It is true to say that when weapons were shown to me, it was not having label. It is true to say that when weapons were shown to me, those were not wrapped or in sealed condition.” What more is required to discard the so called recovery made by the another Investigating Officer Mr. Naik, in the light of the aforesaid admission given by none other than the first informant about the weapons which were shown to him by earlier Investigating officer Shri Zurmure (PW13). In the light of the aforesaid, we have used the phraseology in this judgment to the recovery at the behest of appellant no.2 as “farcical one”. Further, even the scientific evidence is not supporting the prosecution qua appellant no.2. Appellant no.2’s clothes and chappal were sent to the Chemical Analyser under requisition Exh.137. Those were at Exhibit-5 and Exhibit-7 in C.A. form. The Chemical Analyser’s report is at Exh.140. In the said report, Exhibit- A5 is at serial nos.6 and 7 and Exhibit-A7 is at Serial No. 9. The C.A. Report (Exh.140) shows that there was no blood on the clothes and chappal of appellant no.2. 38. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in our mind about the presence of appellant no.2. Insofar as appellant no.1 is concerned, Chemical Analyser’s report (Exh.140) shows that there were blood on his clothes and on his chappal. The learned trial Court has relied on that circumstance to record a finding against appellant no.1. 38. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in our mind about the presence of appellant no.2. Insofar as appellant no.1 is concerned, Chemical Analyser’s report (Exh.140) shows that there were blood on his clothes and on his chappal. The learned trial Court has relied on that circumstance to record a finding against appellant no.1. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, in absence of giving any opportunity to the accused to explain the result of C.A. report Exh.140 when his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded that cannot be used to record the finding of guilt. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State could not point out that the said incriminating material as observed in Exh.140 was brought to the notice of appellant no.1. Therefore, there is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. However, nothing turns on it in favour of appellant no.1. The Chemical Analyser’s report (Exh.140) or scientific evidence are not the substantive piece of evidence, but it is the evidence which corroborates the substantive evidence. In this case, qua appellant no.1, the substantive evidence is the unshattered testimony of Raju Chanekar (PW2) and Rupali Khadse (PW9), who in clinching words has stated the presence of appellant no.1, as an assailant on deceased Kamlakar. 39. A feeble argument was advanced before this Court by taking a stray statement made by PW7 Omprakash Joshi that Raju Chanekar (PW2) and Rupali Khadse (PW9) came after 4-5 minuts when he reached to the spot of the incident. Omprakash Joshi (PW7) is not an eye-witness. From his evidence it is clear that his house is situated around 50 - 60 feet near TV centre and when he went to the spot, 8 -10 persons were already there and Raju Chanekar and Rupali Khadse came there within 4 - 5 minutes. We have already observed that the spot of the incident is about 300 feet away from the house of deceased, whereas the house of Omprakash Joshi (PW7) is just at the distance 50 feet. Therefore, obviously he will reach firstly rather than Raju (PW2) and Rupali (PW9). We have already observed that the spot of the incident is about 300 feet away from the house of deceased, whereas the house of Omprakash Joshi (PW7) is just at the distance 50 feet. Therefore, obviously he will reach firstly rather than Raju (PW2) and Rupali (PW9). Since, we have already recorded a finding on the basis of the evidence of eye-witnesses that they have seen the incident of assault by appellant no.1 from their house, stray statement in the cross-examination of Omprakash Joshi (PW7) looses its importance inasmuch as the case of the prosecution as to be read as a whole and not in bits and pieces. 40. On re-appreciation of the entire prosecution case, it allows us to pass the following order : ORDER i] The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. ii] The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hinganghat in Sessions Case No. 55/2017 (Old No. 88/2014), dated 24.09.2018 is quashed and set aside to the extent it held appellant no.2 - Sachin Shankarrao Dehane as guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. iii] Appellant no.2 - Sachin Shankarrao Dehane is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. iv] Appellant no.2 - Sachin Shankarrao Dehane, who is in jail shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. v] The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hinganghat in Sessions Case No. 55/2017 (Old No.188/2014), dated 24.09.2018 convicting appellant no.1 - Shrikant Ankushrao Bamhane for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode is hereby confirmed. vi] Consequently, appellant no.1 Shrikant Ankushrao Bramhane is directed to undergo imprisonment for life as imposed upon him. vii] With this, the criminal appeal is disposed of.