Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 920 (KAR)

Bomma @ Bavaralal v. State of Karnataka

2022-07-18

K.SOMASHEKAR, SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Crl.A. No. 801/2017 is filed by accused Nos. 1 and 8, Crl.A. No. 806/2017 is filed by accused Nos. 2 to 5 and Crl.A. No. 807/2017 is filed by accused No. 6. These appeals are filed by the respective accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court in S.C. No. 10028/2016 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Sagar whereunder the accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- each; accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months; accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 years; accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each. They are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 115 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Since all the three appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are taken up together for passing common judgment. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that the complainant is a resident of Neharu Nagar of Sagar town. His fourth son Hassainer was working in cloth shop in Bengaluru and about 6 months back he had returned to Sagar and was doing fish business with him. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that the complainant is a resident of Neharu Nagar of Sagar town. His fourth son Hassainer was working in cloth shop in Bengaluru and about 6 months back he had returned to Sagar and was doing fish business with him. In October 2014 there was a quarrel between his son Hassainer and his friends Amazad, Muzamin and Sukka and residents of Armanekeri of Sagar town and his son with his friends assaulted Mohammed Ali and Ismail Shariff with chopper and in this regard there was a case registered against his son and his friends who were sent to jail. After the said incident Mohammed Ali and Ismail Sharif were waiting for an opportunity to kill his son and his friends. On 20.03.2015 at about 08.30 pm complainant was in his house, someone came and informed that someone had assaulted his son Hassainer near Sharavathi Cold Drinks on B.H. Road. Immediately he went there and saw that his son was already taken to the hospital. Hence, he went there and saw that his son was severely injured. On enquiry his son told him that said Mohammed Ali, Ismali Sharif, Pratap, Rakesh, Imran, Bomma, Rahil and their persons assaulted him with deadly weapons when he was standing near Sharavati Cold Drinks house. Thereafter the said Hassainer died on the way to Shivamogga Hospital. The said complaint came to be registered in Sagar town P.S. in crime No. 56/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 218, 149, 302 of IPC. The Police, after investigation, have filed charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 9 for the offence punishable under Sections 115, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120-B IPC. Since accused No. 7 was a juvenile, his case was tried before the Juvenile Justice Board. The learned Sessisons Judge framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, and 115 IPC. The prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.15 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.39 and M.O.1 to M.O. 33. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they have denied all the incriminating evidence. All the accused did not choose to examine any defence witness. After hearing the arguments on both the sides, the Sessions Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is challenged in the present appeals. 4. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they have denied all the incriminating evidence. All the accused did not choose to examine any defence witness. After hearing the arguments on both the sides, the Sessions Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is challenged in the present appeals. 4. Heard Sri. Hasmath Pasha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants in all the three appeals and learned Additional SPP Sri. Vijayakumar Majage for the respondent-State. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that P.W.1 - complainant was not an eye witness and he was at home at the time of incident and he, after receiving the information about the incident goes to the hospital wherein the alleged oral dying declaration made by the deceased Hassainer which is mentioned in Ex.P.1 - complaint cannot be believed since as per the medical records deceased Hassainer was not in a position to speak and accused named in the FIR are in inimical terms with the deceased. P.W.1 - complainant has not noticed the presence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 who are stated to be the eye witnesses in the spot or in the hospital. It is his further contention that Ex.P.1 - complaint is not the first information and it came into existence during the investigation and earlier first information has been suppressed. It is his further submission that the deceased, P.W.2, P.W.3 and other attached the accused and case came to be registered against them for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC in crime No. 307/2014 and only for that reason they have been arraigned as accused, they have been falsely implicated in the case. P.W.11 - Police Officer who received information regarding he incident goes to the sport and to the hospital and he ought to have registered the case suo motu since it is a cognizable offence and therefore the complaint filed by P.W.1 is not first information. It is his further argument that the conduct of the eye witnesses - P.W.2 to P.W.4 is not natural their presence at the spot is doubtful. They are in inimical terms with the accused and therefore their evidence cannot be relied on. It is his further argument that the conduct of the eye witnesses - P.W.2 to P.W.4 is not natural their presence at the spot is doubtful. They are in inimical terms with the accused and therefore their evidence cannot be relied on. It is his further submission that this FIR registered at 10.00 pm on 20.03.2015 reached the Magistrate at 12.05 pm on 21.03.2015, i.e, nearly after 14 hours and the said delay is caused since there is due deliberation between the complainant and others to implicate these appellant/accused. There is a delay in recording the statement of the eye witnesses; eye witnesses are chance witnesses and therefore their evidence cannot be relied on. The statement of eye witnesses has been recorded after drawing of spot mahazar, inquest mahazar and conducting of postmortem over the deadbody of the deceased. In the inquest mahazar - Ex.P.8 there is no mention of names of the accused. Even though their names are mentioned in the FIR which is registered at 10.00 pm it shows that the FIR is anti timed to implicate these accused. The FIR is registered after due deliberations making utilization of the timeline to implicate the accused. Looking to the cross-examination of P.W.7 - Dr. Jayalakshmi who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased it is doubtful that the deceased having informed his father about the incident and therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is doubtful. It is his further submission that the names of eye witnesses are not mentioned in the complaint - Ex.P.1 and FIR - Ex.P.26. It is his further submission that there were no efforts by the eye witnesses to save the deceased at the time of the incident and they have also not made any efforts to take the deceased to the hospital. Therefore, their conduct is not natural. It is his further submission that the statement of the eye witness, i.e., P.W.2 is recorded on 21.03.2015 and the statement of P.W.3 and P.W.4 on 24.03.2015 and as there is delay in recording the statement, their testimony cannot be relied on. It is his further submission that if the eye witnesses are relatives/friends of the deceased then their evidence is to be scrutinized meticulously. If the chance witnesses are friends and relatives of the deceased then no credence can be given to their version/evidence. It is his further submission that if the eye witnesses are relatives/friends of the deceased then their evidence is to be scrutinized meticulously. If the chance witnesses are friends and relatives of the deceased then no credence can be given to their version/evidence. It is his further submission that the case of the prosecution against accused No. 1 and 8 is that they instigated the other accused to assault the deceased but recovery of weapon is at the instance of accused No. 1. It is his further submission that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the trial Court has erred in passing the impugned judgment which requires interference by this Court. On the points urged, the learned senior advocate has placed reliance on the following decisions. (i) Arun Bhanudas Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (11) SCC 232 (ii) Amar Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 (19) SCC 165 (iii) State of A.P vs. Punati Ramulu and Others, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 590 (iv) Meharaj Singh vs. State of U.P., 1994 (5) SCC (v) Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 1978 (4) SCC 371 (vi) Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1972 (3) SCC 393 (vii) Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 (3) SCC 815 (viii) Sonia Bahera vs. State of Orissa, 1983 (2) SCC 327 (ix) Balakrushna Swain vs. State Orissa, 1971 (3) SCC 192 (x) Bhimappa Jinnappa Naganur vs. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 449 (xi) Ram Ashrit Ram and others vs. State of Bihar, 1981 (2) SCC 60 (xii) Bahal Singh vs. The State of Harayana, 1976 (3) SCC 564 (xiii) Mahmood vs. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SCC 69 6. Per contra learned Additional SPP appearing for the State would contend that merely because the names of the eye witnesses is not stated in the complaint/inquest is not fatal to the prosecution case. The complainant is not an eye witness and therefore he mentioning the names of eye witnesses in the complaint does not arise. Statement of P.W.2 is recorded on 21.03.2015 and statement of P.W.3 and P.W.4 are recorded on 24.03.2015 and there is no delay in recorded the statement of eye witnesses. The evidence of P.W.8 establishes seizure and recovery on the basis of voluntary statement of the accused. Statement of P.W.2 is recorded on 21.03.2015 and statement of P.W.3 and P.W.4 are recorded on 24.03.2015 and there is no delay in recorded the statement of eye witnesses. The evidence of P.W.8 establishes seizure and recovery on the basis of voluntary statement of the accused. It is his further submission that cryptic information regarding the offence through phone call does not amount to first information. Carrier of the FIR - P.W.10 has explained the delay in getting the FIR print out and handing over the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate and more so it is to be noted that the date of incident is on Ugadi festival. The FSL report - Ex.P.32 reveals that the stains found on the clothes of the accused are of AB Blood group which is the blood group of the deceased. One Mohd. Jaffar in his statement recorded during inquest - Ex.P.8 has stated the names of the accused. It is his further argument that the purpose of drawing inquest mahazar is to ascertain the cause of death. The learned Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly convicted the appellant/accused for the offence alleged against them. There are no grounds to interfere with the reasoned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Additional SPP on the points urged by him has placed reliance on the following decisions. (i) Rana Partap and Others vs. State of Haryana, 1983 (3) SCC 327 (ii) Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991 (3) SCC 627 (iii) Amar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh and others, 2003 (2) SCC 518 (iv) Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920 (v) Satish Narayan Sawant Vs. State of Goa, 2009 (17) SCC 724 (vi) Aqeel Ahmad vs. State of U.P., AIR 2009 SC 1271 (vii) Motiram Padu Joshi and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 (9) SCC 429 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made on both the sides and perused the records and judgments relied on. 8. The accusations leveled against the accused in the charge sheet and the gist of the charge framed is as under: That on 20.10.2013 the deceased Hassainer and his friends had quarreled with accused Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of a financial matter and attempted to kill them. 8. The accusations leveled against the accused in the charge sheet and the gist of the charge framed is as under: That on 20.10.2013 the deceased Hassainer and his friends had quarreled with accused Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of a financial matter and attempted to kill them. In that to 8 along with accused No. 9 with an intention to commit the murder of the deceased Hassainer and 9 and conspired to kill the deceased Hassainer and in further of such conspiracy on have formed an unlawful assembly holding dangerous weapons and came on the bike of accused No. 1 - KA-15 U-1486 - Pulsar and KA- 15-J-9148 Victor bike near Sharavathi Cold Drinks situated on B.H. Road of Sagar town and when they were waiting there the deceased Hassainer came on bike and went inside the Sharavathi Cold Drinks and came out and when he was getting on his bike, at that time accused Nos. 4 and 6 who were holding long chopper have assaulted the deceased Hassainer on his neck and at that time the deceased Hassainer escaped and went near the ginger shop of C.W.4 - Abdul Majil @ Majil and accused Nos. 2, 3,5 and 7 who were near that ginger shop holding long choppers have assaulted on the body and hands of the deceased Hassainer and caused severe who were on the spot were abetting accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 to assault the deceased Hassainer as he had assaulted them and not to leave him. The injured Hassainer was taken to Government Hospital, Sagar and after first-aid when he was on the way to Shivamogga Hospital near Ayanur he died at 09.45 pm. 9. The prosecution in all has examined 15 witnesses in order to prove the charge leveled against the accused. It is relevant to refer to the evidence of each of the witnesses in brief. P.W.1 - K. Hamza is the father of deceased who has lodged the complaint. He has stated that his son Hassainer was working in bag and cloths shop at Bengaluru. About 5 to 6 months prior to this incident he had come to Sagar and was doing fish business with him. P.W.1 - K. Hamza is the father of deceased who has lodged the complaint. He has stated that his son Hassainer was working in bag and cloths shop at Bengaluru. About 5 to 6 months prior to this incident he had come to Sagar and was doing fish business with him. In the year 2014 there was a quarrel between his son Hassainer, one Hamazad, Sukka, accused No. 1, 2 and his friends and a case was registered against his son who was released on bail. For this reason opponents of Hassainer were angry and were shouting and he came to know about this fact by the people. On 20-03-2015 at about 8-00 p.m he was in the house and someone came and told him that someone had assaulted his son Hassainer near Sharavathi cold drinks and Ginger shop. He went to the spot and at that time already his son was taken to the hospital Hence, he went to the hospital and found that his son was moaning on account of injuries sustained. On enquiry his son told him that one Mahammed Ali, Ismail Sharif, Prathap, Rakesh, Imran, Bomma Rahil and Shahid were assaulted him with longs and Mohammed Ali and Shahid were instigating others to assault him. Further, said Hassainer died on the way to the hospital to Shivamogga. After lodging the complaint he had shown the spot to the Police wherein Police have drawn the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and police have seized blood stained mud from the spot. He has stated during the course of his cross examination that he went alone to the spot and hospital by walk and when he was talking to the injured no treatment was providing to him and he had not gone to the hospital with the injured to Shivamogga and his son in law and C.W.3 were going in the Ambulance. At about 9-45 p.m. he had received the phone call that Hassainer died near Ayanur. Then he got typed complaint in the Taluka office and lodged in the station and he does not know who had typed the complaint. Further, he does not know who brought Hassainer to the hospital in the Auto. At about 9-45 p.m. he had received the phone call that Hassainer died near Ayanur. Then he got typed complaint in the Taluka office and lodged in the station and he does not know who had typed the complaint. Further, he does not know who brought Hassainer to the hospital in the Auto. After receiving phone call at about 10.00 p.m he went to the Taluk Office and got typed compliant in the typing machine and two persons were there in the Taluka Office and he does not know the name of shop in which he got it typed. P.W.2. Sukka @ Sufail has stated that he is a friend of deceased Hassainer. About 5-6 months prior to this incident there was quarrel between Hamzad, Hassainer and accused No. 1 in respect of gambling and case was registered against them and they had gone to Jail and released on bail. After 10 to15 days when they got released on bail, accused No. 3 Pratap has lodged complaint that they were threatening him for money. In that case himself, deceased Hassainer and Machchu again went to the jail. Accused No. 1 was waiting to kill them and himself, Hamzad, Babu, Hassainer and Machchu were trying to escape from him. About one week prior to this incident he came to know that there was a conspiracy in the house of accused No. 1 to assault them and accused No. 9 told her son and his companions to assault them in the manner how they assaulted her son. So they were trying to escape from them. Further, on 20-03-2015 himself and Hamzad have gone to Egg fried rice shop in front of Sharavathi Cold drinks at about 06.45 p.m. At that time deceased Hassainer came to Sharavathi Cold drinks at about 07.30 p.m. on bike and after some time when he came out and about to board his bike at that time accused No. 4 Rakesh and accused No. 6 Bomma came there and assaulted with Chopper on his head and neck. At that time Hassainer escaped from them and was running near Ginger shop situated by the side of egg fried rice shop. At that time Hassainer escaped from them and was running near Ginger shop situated by the side of egg fried rice shop. At that time accused No. 2 Ismail and accused No. 3 Pratap and accused No. 5 Imran and accused No. 7 Rahil came there and were assaulting Hassainer with Chopper all over his body at that time accused No. 1 and 8 were there and they were instigating accused No. 2, accused No. 3, accused No. 5 and accused No. 7 to assault him. Said Hassainer fell and was moaning on account of injury sustained. They all ran away by holding Choppers, They were all standing there itself and were scared going near the Hassainer as they were holding Choppers. When accused went, himself and Hamzad brought Hassainer in auto to Government Hospital at Sagar. Hassainer had sustained injuries on his head, hands, neck, back, legs, thigh and face. Then Police and father of Hassainer came there and Hassainer died on the way to Shivamogga hospital. Further, during the course of his cross examination he has stated that he does not know where and when C.W.3 Machchu and Name as Hassainer were gambling. Name of Hassainer was there in the rowdy list. Accused were searching for them for 15 to 20 days when they were released on bail in gambling. They were informing police that there is a threat to their life and he was in Jail for about 20 days in the case filed by Prathap. Himself, Hassainer and Machchu were there in the case filed by the Prathap. On the day of incident he had seen the Hassainer in the Masjid during Namaz and they chitchat half an hour there and Hassainer told him about the conspiracy and he has not told before the Police that exact time himself and Hamzad had gone to egg fried rice shop and he had seen the Hassainer coming there on bike and the entering Sharavathi Cold drinks and came out after 15 to 20 minutes and he had seen there when Hassainer screamed and people were running and accused Rakesh and Bomma came there on separate bikes and he doesn't remember what colour clothes worn by Rakesh and Bomma and he doesn't remember who were holding which longs and Choppers and they have seen the accused assaulting Hassainer. After the incident he called the public to help, but no one came and himself and Hamzad took Hassainer to the hospital in the Auto at about 08.00 p.m. Further, he had denied the suggestion that someone for some other reason assaulted Hassainer. P.W.3 Zakriya Ahammed is a eye witness who has supported the case of prosecution. He has stated that one year prior to this incident there was a quarrel between accused No. 1 and Hassainer on the Hanambi road and in this regard there was ill-will between them and he knew that Mohammed Ali was waiting for the opportunity to assault Hassainer. On 20-03- 2015 at about 07.30 p.m. to 08.00 p.m when himself, C.W.9 Javid and C.W.10 Safan were standing near Sharavathi cold drinks, at that time Hassainer came there on bike and went to Sharavathi cold drinks after 10 minutes he came out and when he was boarding the bike at that time accused No. 4 Rakesh and accused No. 6 Bomma came behind him and assaulted him with Choppers on his shoulders and head and said Hassianer went and fell near Ginger shop in front of Sharavathi cold drinks. At that time accused Prathap, Rahil, Ismail Sharif, Ibrahim, Puppusi came and assaulted Hassainer with Choppers on were instigating them to kill him and then they ran away. Thereafter Safan and Hamzad took Hassainer to the Hospital in the Auto. Later he came to know that Hassainer died on the way to the Shivamogga Hospital. Further, during the course of his cross examination he has stated that since 8 years he is working as a Lorry driver at Kunadapur and on the day of incident himself, Javed (C.W.9) and Safan (C.W.10) were standing there by talking to each other. At that time deceased Hassainer came there and went to Sharavathi cold drinks house and at that time accused came and assaulted him with deadly weapons. Further, he has stated that he had not tried to chase the accused while they were escaping as they were holding Choppers. Further, he has stated that injured was shifted to hospital in the Auto. He has identified the accused. Further, he has stated that he had not tried to chase the accused while they were escaping as they were holding Choppers. Further, he has stated that injured was shifted to hospital in the Auto. He has identified the accused. P.W.4 Mohammed Safan has stated that about 4 to 5 months prior to this incident there was a quarrel between accused No. 1 group and deceased Hassainer group in Neharu Nagar in respect of money and in this regard case was registered and deceased Hassainer, C.W.2 and C.W.3 were sent to Jail. Hence, there was a ill- will between accused No. 1 group and Hassainer group and accused No. 1 and his persons were waiting to kill the Hassainer. Further, he has stated that on 20-03-2015 at about 07.30 p.m to 08.00 p.m. himself, C.W.3 Zakriya and C.W.9 Javed were standing near auto stand near the Sharavathi cold drinks house and at that time said Hassainer came on bike there and went to Sharavathi cold drinks house and after 10 minutes he came out and was about to start his bike, at that time accused No. 4 Rakesh and accused No. 6 Bhavaralal @ Bomma came there and assaulted Hassainer with Choppers on his head and neck. At that time said Hassainer ran and fell near Ginger shop of C.W.4 situated opposite to Sharavathi Cold drinks house. At that time accused No. 2 Ismail, accused No. 3 Prathap, accused No. 5 Imran, accused No. 7 Rahil @ Pappusi came there and assaulted Hassiner with Longs and Choppers on his legs, hands, head, back and all over the body. Accused No. 1 Mohammed Ali and accused No. 8 Shahid who were there instigating them to kill Hassainer. After assaulting all the accused ran away from the spot by taking their Longs and Choppers. They were witnessing this incident and not gone near Hassainer as they were scared by seeing the accused holding Choppers and Longs. Thereafter, Sukka and Hamzad took the Hassainer to the hospital in a Auto. After assaulting all the accused ran away from the spot by taking their Longs and Choppers. They were witnessing this incident and not gone near Hassainer as they were scared by seeing the accused holding Choppers and Longs. Thereafter, Sukka and Hamzad took the Hassainer to the hospital in a Auto. Later on he came to know that said Hassainer died on the way to Shivamogga hospital at about 09.00 to 10.00 p.m. Further, during the course of his cross examination he has stated that he is a driver in Luggage pick up vehicle of one Hanif at Sagar and at the time of incident himself, Zakriya and one Javed were standing near the spot by talking to each other and at that time he had seen the accused Rakesh and Bomma coming there by holding choppers and when Hassainer came out of Sharavathi cold drinks house they assaulted him. Thereafter, he came to know that deceased Hassainer died on the same day on the way to Shivamogga Hospital. P.W.5 Iqbal is a spot pancha. He has stated that police have drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 in his presence and seized sample of blood stained mud and plain mud and Police have taken photograph at that time. Further, he has admitted during the course of his cross examination that he had signed on the mahazar as per the say of police. P.W.6 Mohammed is a inquest pancha. He has stated that he was present during inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.8. Further, during the course of his cross examination he has stated that he has signed on the mahazar as per the say of Police without knowing its contents. P.W.7 Dr.Jayalakshmi has deposed regarding conducting of Post Mortem as per Ex.P.9. She has stated that during post mortem examination she found the external injuries on the body. Further, she has stated that his death is due to haemorrhagic shock bleeding to multiple deep cut injuries on body. Further, she has stated that as per Ex.P.10 she has given the opinion that she had examined 6 Longs sent by Investigation Officer and opined that there is a possibility of sustaining injuries found on the dead body of Hassainer with these weapons. Further, she has stated that as per Ex.P.10 she has given the opinion that she had examined 6 Longs sent by Investigation Officer and opined that there is a possibility of sustaining injuries found on the dead body of Hassainer with these weapons. Further, during the course of her cross examination she has stated that there is a possibility of dying immediately if a person sustains above said injuries and this death is due to hemorrhage and shock. P.W.8 Asraf has stated that Police have taken him and C.W.23 to the town Police station and at that time accused Mohammed Ali. Ismail, Pratap, Rakesh, Imran, Rahil, Shahid and Bomma were there whose clothes were blood stained and Police have seized their blood stained clothes, one mobile from accused No. 1 in his presence under seizure Mahazar as per Ex.P.11. Thereafter accused have taken them and Police to Gadadayya layout and produced Longs and Choppers and Police have seized the same under mahazar in their presence and taken photographs and recorded video at that time. Further, during the course of his cross examination the learned defence counsel tried to elicit from his mouth that he is well acquainted with the Police and he is a professional pancha. But he did not succeed. Only considerable fact that elicited from his mouth that M.O.24 and M.O.27 were seized from one of the accused Pratap Singh and again he was allowed to wear the same. P.W.9 Abdul Munaf is a Assistant Executive Engineer. He has stated that he has given the certificate as per Ex.P.25 that on 20.03.2015 there was electricity supply between 07.00 p.m to 09.00 p.m. near Netravathi cold drinks on B.H.road. P.W.10 Rathnakara, P.W.11 Krishnamurthy.K and P.W.12 Dinesh Patil are Police witnesses who have deposed regarding their respective role in the investigation. P.W.13 Dr.Lingegowda N.L. is a scientific officer. He has stated that he has conducted chemical examination of 29 articles submitted by Police and given the report as per Ex.P.32 that except article Nos. 1, 13, 16, 18, 20 and 22 there were blood stains on all other articles which belongs to human being of 'AB' blood group. P.W.14 Dr.Pratima has deposed regarding treatment given by her to injured Ismail and Rakesh on 24-03-2015 and issuance of wound certificates as per Ex.P.38 and Ex.P.39. P.W.-15 Asif Alisha is a circumstantial witness. 1, 13, 16, 18, 20 and 22 there were blood stains on all other articles which belongs to human being of 'AB' blood group. P.W.14 Dr.Pratima has deposed regarding treatment given by her to injured Ismail and Rakesh on 24-03-2015 and issuance of wound certificates as per Ex.P.38 and Ex.P.39. P.W.-15 Asif Alisha is a circumstantial witness. He has stated that there was a TVS Victor bike bearing Reg.No. KA.15/J.9148 in the name of his brother Hidayath Ulla who had sold it to one Yusuf of Sagar. But it was not transferred in the name of Yusuf. Further, he has admitted the suggestion of the prosecution during the course of his cross examination by the prosecution that his brother sold the said bike to first accused Mohammed Ali and it was used in the case of murder of Hassainer. P.W.15 again during the course of his cross examination by the defence side has admitted that he does not know where and from whom the Police have seized the said bike and he does not know anything about the said bike. By deposing so he has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. 10. P.W.1 is the complainant and father of the deceased - Hassainer and he is not an eye witness to the incident. P.W.2 to 4 are eye witnesses to the incident. As per the evidence of P.W.2 to 4 they have seen the incident where accused were assaulting the deceased - Hassainer with deadly weapons like long choppers. P.W.2 is having criminal background and he was in jail for some days. P.W.2, on the date of incident had come to have fried rice right infront of Sharavathi Cold Drinks House. It is argued that P.W.2 is the friend of the deceased and therefore his evidence cannot be relied on as he is an interested witness. P.W.2 is not the only eye witness to the incident but there are several eye witnesses out of whom two other eye witnesses were examined and they are P.W.3 and P.W.4. The occupation of P.W.3 and P.W.4 is drivers of the vehicles. P.W.3 is driving a transport lorry bearing No. KA-20-C-6188 transporting fish from Kundapur and he has deposed that he was present on the spot at the time of incident and he has witnessed the incident. The occupation of P.W.3 and P.W.4 is drivers of the vehicles. P.W.3 is driving a transport lorry bearing No. KA-20-C-6188 transporting fish from Kundapur and he has deposed that he was present on the spot at the time of incident and he has witnessed the incident. On perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.3 his presence on the spot at the time of incident cannot be doubted. P.W.3 has given reasonable account of the incident. P.W.4 is pick-up van driver and he was waiting for customers to be hired. When he was waiting for the customers to hire for his pick up van he has witnessed the incident. This witness has also given detailed account of the incident. On perusal of his evidence his presence on the spot at the time of incident and he witnessing the incident cannot be doubted. Even though P.W.2 is considered to be an interested witness his version is corroborated by the evidence of independent eye witnesses viz., P.W.3 and P.W.4. All three eye witnesses, viz., P.W.2 to P.W.4 have given evidence before the trial Court in natural way and they have only stated what they have seen. There may be some minor discrepancies and contradictions in their evidence. The very said aspect goes to show that their version is truthful and they are not tutored witnesses. On perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 the trial Court has rightly held that there are no reasons to suspect the presence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 on the spot at the time of incident. The testimony of eye witnesses is firm and not shaken in their cross-examination. There is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. The evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 is fully corroborated with each other and P.W.3 and P.W.4 are independent eye witnesses. There is nothing in their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence. 11. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants would contend that the eye witnesses have not taken the deceased to the hospital or they have not intimated the incident to the Police Station and they have not ventured to save the deceased and therefore their conduct is not natural and therefore their version cannot be relied on. It is his further submission that there is a delay in recording the statement of the eye witnesses and the eye witnesses have not disclosed the incident to anybody on that day. It is his further submission that there is a delay in recording the statement of the eye witnesses and the eye witnesses have not disclosed the incident to anybody on that day. On these aspects the learned counsel has placed reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Amar Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2020 (19) SCC 165 wherein it is held as under. 25. The facts discussed hereinabove make the presence of eye witness at the place of occurrence all the more doubtful and highly improbable. Since there are serious doubtful aspects in the conduct of PW-1 Parminder Singh and his conduct does not appear to be natural it would not be safe to accept his evidence without corroboration more particularly when two other eye witnesses, one being a real brother of the deceased has turned hostile." In the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1978 (4) SCC 371 wherein it is held as under: 42. Apart from the fact that Welji's conduct was strange and inconsistent with the normal conduct of an eye-witness, and the inordinate delay in recording his statement by the police, his evidence suffers from other material flaws, also. In his statement before the police, Welji did not specifically name Pramila (P.W. 2) as person by whose shouts, he was attracted to the scene of occurrence. In variance with what he stated at the trial, his version before the police was that he had heard 'some ladies, (that means more than one person), shouting 'Bachao Bachao'. Admittedly, he knew Pramila's name prior to the occurrence. His version in the witness-box that he was attracted to the spot on hearing the shouts of Pramila, was therefore, an improvement deliberately made to fit in the prosecution story at the trial." In the case of Sonia Bahera Vs. State of Orissa reported in 1983 (2) SCC 327 it is held that eye witnesses not disclosing the incident on the day of occurrence and therefore their evidence is not worthy of acceptance. 13. State of Orissa reported in 1983 (2) SCC 327 it is held that eye witnesses not disclosing the incident on the day of occurrence and therefore their evidence is not worthy of acceptance. 13. In reply to the above citations, learned Additional SPP submitted that every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way, some would stunt, become speechless, stand rooted to the spot, some become hysteric and start wailing and some start shouting for help and others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. To disregard the evidence of the eye witness on the ground that he did not react in a particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and un-imaginary way. On that point he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rana Pratap and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1983 (3) SCC 327 . "6. Yet another reason given by the learned Sessions Judge to doubt the presence of the witnesses was that their conduct in not going to the rescue of the deceased when he was in the clutches of the assailants was unnatural. We must say that the comment is most unreal. Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter- attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. 14. The Apex Court in another decision in the case of Motiram Padu Joshi and others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2018 (9) SCC 429 has considered the same aspect and held as under: 15. 14. The Apex Court in another decision in the case of Motiram Padu Joshi and others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2018 (9) SCC 429 has considered the same aspect and held as under: 15. Evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is assailed on the ground that PWs 3 and 4 have not gone to the rescue of the deceased and it is quite unbelievable that on seeing the accused who were armed with weapons, both of them went inside the house. It is further submitted that the trial court righty held that their evidence is not trustworthy and the High Court was not right in intervening such finding and basing the conviction on the evidence of PWs 3 and 4. In their evidence, PWs 3 and 4 have stated that on seeing number of accused armed with deadly weapons got frightened and went inside the house and stood near the window and saw the occurrence. Their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that they did not intervene in the attack nor made attempts to save the deceased. On witnessing a crime, each person reacts in his own way and their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that the witness has not acted in a particular manner. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 cannot be doubted merely because they have not acted in a particular manner. 17. While appreciating the evidence of witness, approach must be whether the evidence of witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth and consistent with the prosecution case or to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the case. Their evidence cannot be doubted merely because they belong to opposite faction. All that is required is that their evidence is to be scrutinized with care and caution. On testing the evidence of PWs 2 to 4, the High Court found that their evidence is consistent and credit worthy. We find no reason to take a different view." Therefore, the conduct of the eye witnesses is not in a particular manner is not a ground to disregard their evidence. 15. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants would contend that the names of the eye witnesses are not mentioned in the FIR and therefore their presence is to be disbelieved. 15. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants would contend that the names of the eye witnesses are not mentioned in the FIR and therefore their presence is to be disbelieved. On that point he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhimappa Jinnappa Naganur Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 449. 16. The complaint has been filed by the father of the deceased - Hassainer and he has not witnessed the incident and therefore he mentioning the names of eye witnesses in the first information does not arise. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants would further contend that the names of the eye witnesses are not mentioned even in the inquest mahazar. 17. In reply to that contention the learned Additional SPP would submit that the basic intention of holding an inquest report is regarding the apparent cause of death, namely whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery etc. On that point he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh and others reported in 2003(2) SCC 518 . 12. The High Court has also held that the details about the occurrence were not mentioned in the inquest report which showed that the investigating officer was not sure of the facts when the inquest report was prepared and this feature of the case carried weight in favour of the accused. We are unable to accept this reasoning of the High Court. We are unable to accept this reasoning of the High Court. The provision for holding of an inquest and preparing an inquest report is contained in Section 174 Cr.P.C. The heading of the Section is "Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc." Sub-section (1) of this Section provides that when the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give information to the nearest Executive Magistrate and shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been inflicted. The requirement of the section is that the police officer shall record the apparent cause of death describing the wounds as may be found on the body and also the weapon or instrument by which they appear to have been inflicted and this has to be done in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood. The Section does not contemplate that the manner in which the incident took place or the names of the accused should be mentioned in the inquest report. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, namely whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery, etc. The scope and purpose of Section 174 Cr.P.C. was explained by this Court in Pedda Narayana & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1252 and it will be useful to reproduce the same(SCC pp.157-58, para 11). "The proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited scope. The object of the proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. "The proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited scope. The object of the proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174. Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to mention those details in the inquest report. It is therefore not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report. Their omission is not sufficient to put the prosecution out of Court. 13. In Khujji v. State of M. P (AIR para 8) this Court, after placing reliance upon the above quoted decision, rejected the contention raised on behalf of the accused that the evidence of eye-witnesses could not be relied upon as their names did not figure in the inquest report prepared at the earliest point of time. In Shakila Khadar v. Nausher Cama(AIR para 5), it was held that an inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is concerned with establishing the cause of the death only. The High Court was, therefore, clearly in error in holding that as the facts about the occurrence were not mentioned in the inquest report, it would show that at least by the time the report was prepared the investigating officer was not sure of the facts of the case." In view of the aforesaid observations, merely because names of the eye witnesses are not mentioned in the inquest or names of the assailants are not mentioned in the inquest is not a ground to disbelieve the testimony of eye witnesses and involvement of the accused in the case. 18. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on coming to know about the incident he went to the hospital and met his son - Hassainer and at that time he disclosed the names of the accused as the persons who assaulted him. The said aspect amounts to oral dying declaration of the injured to his father. 18. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on coming to know about the incident he went to the hospital and met his son - Hassainer and at that time he disclosed the names of the accused as the persons who assaulted him. The said aspect amounts to oral dying declaration of the injured to his father. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants would contend that the oral dying declaration made by the deceased ought to be treated with care and caution since the maker of the statement cannot be subjected to any cross-examination. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Arun Bhanudas Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 (11) SCC 232 wherein it is held as under: 25. It is well-settled law that the oral dying declaration made by the deceased ought to be treated with care and caution since the maker of the statement cannot be subjected to any cross- examination. In the present case, admittedly, the alleged dying declaration had not been made to any doctor or to any independent witness, but only to the mother who, as stated above, arrived at the hospital only on the following day at about 3.30 p.m. when Dr. Nitin had already operated Raju for his injuries and thereafter he was lying on the bed in unconscious condition with oxygen tubes having been inserted in his nostrils. The prosecution has not brought on record any medical certification to prove that after operation the deceased was in a fit condition to make the declaration before his mother. The evidence of alleged oral dying declaration by the deceased Raju to his mother P.W.-Sunderbai relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the trial court and the High Court, in our view, was not cogent, satisfactory and convincing to hold that deceased Raju before his death was in a fit condition to make oral declaration to his mother." 19. The names of the assailants which have been disclosed by the injured - Hassainer to his father is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4. Therefore, the said oral dying declaration made by the deceased to his relative is corroborated by the evidence of other eye witnesses. 20. The names of the assailants which have been disclosed by the injured - Hassainer to his father is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4. Therefore, the said oral dying declaration made by the deceased to his relative is corroborated by the evidence of other eye witnesses. 20. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants would contend that P.W.11 - the Investigating Officer has received credible information regarding the incident and he without recording the same visited the spot and thereafter to the hospital and even thereafter he has not registered the FIR. The learned Senior counsel placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lalit Kumari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1 contends that any information received by a Police Officer disclosing a cognizable offence has to be registered as FIR. The learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs. Punati Ramulu and others reported in 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 590 wherein it is held as under: 5. According to the evidence of P.W 22, Circle Inspector, he had received information of the incident from police constable No. 1278, who was on 'bandobast' duty. On receiving the information of the occurrence, P.W 22 left for the village of occurrence and started the investigation in the case. Before proceeding to the village to take up the investigation, it is conceded by PW 22 in his evidence, that he made no entry in the daily diary or record in the general diary about the information that had been given to him by constable 1278, who was the first person to give information to him on the basis of which he had proceeded to the spot and taken up the investigation in hand. It was only when PW 1 returned from the police station along with the written complaint to the village that the same was registered by the circle inspector, PW 22, during the investigation of the case at about 12.30 Noon, as the F.I.R., Ex. P-1. In our opinion, the complaint, Ex. It was only when PW 1 returned from the police station along with the written complaint to the village that the same was registered by the circle inspector, PW 22, during the investigation of the case at about 12.30 Noon, as the F.I.R., Ex. P-1. In our opinion, the complaint, Ex. P-1, could not be treated as the F.I.R. in the case as it certainly would be a statement made during the investigation of a case and hit by Section 162, Cr.P.C. As a matter of fact the High Court recorded a categorical finding to the effect that Ex. P-1 had not been prepared at Narasaraopet and that it had "been brought into existence at Pamidipadu itself, after due deliberation". Once we find that the investigating officer has deliberately failed to record the first information report on receipt of the information of a cognizable offence of the nature, as in this case, and had prepared the first information report after reaching the spot after due deliberations, consultations and discussion, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the investigation is tainted and it would, therefore, be unsafe to rely upon such a tainted investigation, as one would not know where the police officer would have stooped to fabricate evidence and create false clues. Though we agree that mere relationship of the witnesses PW 3 and PW 4, the children of the deceased or of PW 1 and PW 2 who are also related to the deceased, by itself is not enough to discard their testimony and that the relationship or the partisan nature of the evidence only puts the Court on its guard to scrutinise the evidence more carefully, we find that in this case when the bona fides of the investigation has been successfully assailed, it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of these witnesses either in the absence of strong corroborative evidence of a clinching nature, which is found wanting in this case." 21. In answer to the said contention the learned Additional SPP has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Satish Narayan Sawant Vs. State of Goa reported in 2009 (17) SCC 724 wherein it is held as under : 22. In answer to the said contention the learned Additional SPP has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Satish Narayan Sawant Vs. State of Goa reported in 2009 (17) SCC 724 wherein it is held as under : 22. The issue with regard to the initiation of the investigation without recording the FIR was succinctly addressed by this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, (1964) 3 SCR 71 , (per Mudholkar J.) observed as follows: (AIR pp.226-27, para 18) "18. What is investigation is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure; but in H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi1 this Court has described, the procedure, for investigation as follows: (AIR p.201, para 8) '8.....Thus, under the Code investigation consists generally of the following steps, (1) Proceeding to the spot, (2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, (3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, (4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of (a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of places of seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial, and (5) formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173.' This Court, however, has not said that if a police officer takes merely one or two of the steps indicated by it, what he has done must necessarily be regarded as investigation. Investigation, in substance, means collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence. The Investigating Officer is, for this purpose, entitled to question persons who, in this opinion, are able to throw light on the offence which has been committed and is likewise entitled to question the suspect and is entitled to reduce the statements of persons questioned by him to writing. He is also entitled to search the place of the offence and to search other places with the object of seizing articles connected with the offence. He is also entitled to search the place of the offence and to search other places with the object of seizing articles connected with the offence. No doubt, for this purpose he has to proceed to the spot where the offence was committed and do various other things. But the main object of investigation being to bring home the offence to the offender the essential part of the duties of an investigating officer in this connection is, apart from arresting the offender, to collect all material necessary for establishing the accusation against the offender. Merely making some preliminary enquire upon receipt of information from an anonymous source or a source of doubtful reliability for checking up the correctness of the information does not amount to collection of evidence and so cannot be regarded as investigation. In the absence of any prohibition in the Code, express or implied, I am of opinion that it is open to a police officer to make preliminary enquiries before registering an offence and making a full scale investigation into it. 25. Besides, the fact of his going to the place of occurrence would not amount to making an investigation. There is no evidence to show that at that point of time, PW-21 seized any articles or interrogated any witnesses or took any other action in initiating or in furtherance of investigation. The ratio of the decision in Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case as the police officer merely visited the spot and place of occurrence and made some survey which cannot be regarded as investigation. 27. Even assuming that PW-21, the Investigating Officer could have entered the aforesaid information received from PSI of Panaji Police Station in the general diary, yet the said entry could not have been held or treated to be an FIR. The information received by him was very cryptic and without any detail about the incident in question and, therefore, in any case, there was no possibility of recording an FIR at that stage. The place of occurrence was in total darkness and even the persons belonging to the complainant side were not available, therefore, bringing them to the police station where there was sufficient light and recording the complaint at 3.00 a.m. cannot, in any manner, cast any doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. The place of occurrence was in total darkness and even the persons belonging to the complainant side were not available, therefore, bringing them to the police station where there was sufficient light and recording the complaint at 3.00 a.m. cannot, in any manner, cast any doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that the FIR was in any manner hit by the provisions of Section 162 of CrPC." 22. In view of the aforesaid decisions if the Police Officer has received a cryptic information and on that basis visits the spot or place of occurrence and made some survey and the same cannot be regarded as investigation. In the instant case the information received by P.W.11 is cryptic. It does not disclose who has assaulted and who has sustained injury, the place of incident etc., and therefore, there was no concrete material to register the FIR suo motu by P.W.11. 23. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants would contend that there is delay in lodging the FIR and the complaint came to be lodged after due deliberations to implicate the accused who are in inimical terms with the deceased. In support of this contention the learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Aqeel Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2009 SC 1271 . 24. The incident has taken place at about 08.00 pm on 20.03.2015. P.W.1 - father of the deceased Hassainer received information about the incident through some messenger at about 08.30 pm and went to the hospital and met the injured and thereafter when the injured was taken to Shivamogga hospital he died on the way and thereafter got the information of his death. Thereafter P.W.1 filed computerized complaint as per Ex.P.1 at 10.00 pm. The said complaint came to be received at 10.00 pm and the Police registered Crime No. 56/2015 on the same day. There is no delay in registering the complaint. Therefore, the said contention of the learned Senior counsel for the appellants does not hold any substance. Thereafter P.W.1 filed computerized complaint as per Ex.P.1 at 10.00 pm. The said complaint came to be received at 10.00 pm and the Police registered Crime No. 56/2015 on the same day. There is no delay in registering the complaint. Therefore, the said contention of the learned Senior counsel for the appellants does not hold any substance. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants contended that the said FIR reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 12.05 pm on 21.10.2015 i.e., after delay of 14 hours and the said delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution and it might have been caused to implicate the accused. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Thulia Kali Vs. State of T.N. reported in 1972 (3) SCC 393 wherein it is held as under: "First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of after-thought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained." 25. P.W.10 is the carrier of the FIR who handed over the FIR and complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate at 12.05 pm on 21.10.2015. It is his evidence that FIR has been given to him at 10.30 am on 21.10.2015. It is his further evidence that there was technical problem in the computer system and they could not get the print out of the FIR on the previous night. It is his evidence that FIR has been given to him at 10.30 am on 21.10.2015. It is his further evidence that there was technical problem in the computer system and they could not get the print out of the FIR on the previous night. P.W.11 is the PSI who registered the case and he has also deposed the same aspect regarding technical problem in the computer system to get the print out. The said explanation offered by P.W.10 and P.W.11 is sufficient explanation for any delay in sending the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. 26. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that serious infirmities in the FIR of important facts affect the probabilities of the case and it affects the prosecution case. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1975 (3) SCC 815 wherein it is held that serious infirmities in FIR of important facts affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 in judging the veracity of the prosecution case and failure to mention persons alleged to be eye-witnesses in the FIR are detrimental and failure to mention dying declaration is also fatal. In the instant case P.W.1 is the father the deceased - Hassainer. He came to know about the names of the assailants when it was disclosed by the injured to him and on that basis he filed first information as per Ex.P.1. P.W.1 has been cross-examined at length and there are no infirmities found either in the first information - Ex.P.1 or in his evidence. 27. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants would contend that there is delay in examining the eye witnesses by the Investigating Officer and therefore their testimony cannot be relied upon. On that point he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Balakrushna Swain Vs. 27. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants would contend that there is delay in examining the eye witnesses by the Investigating Officer and therefore their testimony cannot be relied upon. On that point he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Balakrushna Swain Vs. State of Orissa reported in 1971 (3) SCC 192 wherein it is held that "much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of a witness when for no justifiable reason he was not examined by the investigating officer for a number of days particularly when the witness is found to be telling falsehood on material aspects of the case and tries to conform to the evidence of other witnesses." In the instant case P.W.2 to P.W.4 are the eye witnesses to the incident. The statement of P.W.2 has been recorded on 21.10.2015, i.e., on the next day of the incident. There is no delay in recording the statement of the said eye witness. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the other two eye witnesses whose statements are recorded on 24.10.2015. The said P.W.3 and P.W.4 are drivers by occupation. The evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 corroborates with each other. Therefore, their evidence can be relied on. 28. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants would contend that reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of the highly interested and inimical witnesses and partisan witnesses, not corroborated to a material extent in all material particulars and suffering from improbabilities and material infirmities. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Ashrit Ram Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1981 (2) SCC 60 . In the instant case P.W.2 is the friend of the deceased - Hassainer who is said to be in inimical terms with the accused as there were clashes between them. But, P.W.3 and P.W.4 who are drivers and who were present on the spot and witnessed the incident are not interested or inimical or partisan witnesses. The testimony of P.W.2 corroborates with the testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.4. Therefore, even though P.W.2 is in inimical terms with the accused his evidence can be relied on as it is corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4. 29. The testimony of P.W.2 corroborates with the testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.4. Therefore, even though P.W.2 is in inimical terms with the accused his evidence can be relied on as it is corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4. 29. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants would contend that P.W.2 to P.W.4 are chance witnesses and as P.W.2 is a friend of the deceased and he is inimically disposed towards the accused and he being a chance witness he is viewed with suspicion. On that point he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bahal Singh Vs. The State of Haryana reported in 1976 (3) SCC 564 wherein it is held as under: "If by coincidence or chance a person happened to be at the place of occurrence at the time it is taking place, he is called a chance witness. And if such a person happens to be a relative or friend of the victim or inimically disposed towards the accused then his being a chance witness is viewed with suspicion. Such a piece of evidence is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable but does require cautions and close scrutiny." 30. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are drivers by profession and they are not friends of the deceased - Hassainer or in inimical terms with the accused. Looking to their evidence it is clear that they are natural witnesses whose evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 and therefore their evidence can be relied on as nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their testimony. 31. Blood stained clothes have been recovered at their instance under Ex.P.11 in the presence of P.W.8 - Ashraff and C.W.23. The said clothes are at M.O.14 to M.O.18. P.W.8 - Ashraf has clearly deposed regarding the seizure of clothes of the accused at their instance and identified M.O.14 to M.O. 18 which are blood stained. The said clothes were sent for chemical examination and were examined by P.W.13 - Dr. Lingegowda N.L., Scientific Officer, FSL and he has given report as per Ex.P.32 stating that the said clothes are having blood stains of AB group. The accused have not explained regarding the said blood stains on their clothes. The blood stains on the clothes are of human. The Apex Court in the case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. Lingegowda N.L., Scientific Officer, FSL and he has given report as per Ex.P.32 stating that the said clothes are having blood stains of AB group. The accused have not explained regarding the said blood stains on their clothes. The blood stains on the clothes are of human. The Apex Court in the case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1991 (3) SCC 627 has held that "Find of human blood on weapon and clothes of the accused - Can be a material circumstance even in absence of determination of blood group - Find of blood stains lending corroboration to the direct testimony of eye witnesses - No explanation for the presence of blood on the weapon and clothes given by accused". In the instant case Six long choppers have been seized at the instance of the accused which were examined by Doctor P.W.13 - Sri. Linge Gowda N.L., who has given report as per Ex.P.32 stating that out of them three are blood stained on the blade and it is of AB group blood. The said aspect corroborates the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4. 32. The motive for the accused to assault the deceased - Hassainer is that the deceased - Hassainer along with P.W.2 and others had assaulted accused Nos. 1 and 2 wherein accused No. 1 sustained severe injuries and accused No. 2 lost his left eye and in that regard a case is registered in S.C. No. 10029/2016 and is pending against them. P.W.2 has deposed to the effect that about 5-6 months prior to the incident there was a quarrel between one Hammad, deceased - Hassainer and accused No. 1 in respect of gambling and case was registered against them and they were sent to jail and got released on bail. After 10-15 days accused No. 3 - Pratap Singh had filed a complaint alleging that they were threatened for money and in that case himself, deceased - Hassainer, Machhu, were again sent to jail and accused No. 2 who was waiting to kill them. The very aspect goes to show that accused were having specific motive to do away with the life of deceased - Hassainer. P.W.1 has also deposed the said aspect relating to the motive for the accused to kill the deceased - Hassainer. Regarding the role of accused Nos. The very aspect goes to show that accused were having specific motive to do away with the life of deceased - Hassainer. P.W.1 has also deposed the said aspect relating to the motive for the accused to kill the deceased - Hassainer. Regarding the role of accused Nos. 1 and 8 it has been specifically stated in evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 that at the time of incident accused Nos. 1 and 8 were there and were instigating accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 to assault the deceased - Hassainer. On perusal of the entire evidence on record we hold that the learned trial Judge has rightly held that the appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 8 have committed the offence alleged against them. We do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. In the result, we pass the following; ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal Nos. 801/2017, 806/2017 and 807/2017 filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. are dismissed. (ii) Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C. No. 10028/2016 is confirmed.