Judgment : (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) 1. Assail in the present Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( CrPC ) is to the Judgment dated 22.12.2016 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar ( Trial Court ) in Sessions Case No.12/2015. 2. By impugned judgment, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the sole appellant herein for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC to three counts for committing murder of Vinay Kannouje ( D-1 ), Sameer Khan ( D-2 ) and Shravan Chouhan ( D-3 ) and for offence under Section 307 for committing attempt to murder of PW-3 Rajesh Kumar Sahu and also for offence under Section 460 of IPC for committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, in the manner as shown in chart given below:- Conviction Sentence 1. Under Section 302 of IPC [for committing murder of D-1 Vinay Kannouje] 1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.5000/-. 3. Simple Imprisonment for 6 months, in default of payment of fine. 2. Under Section 302 of IPC [for committing murder of D-2 Sameer Khan] 1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.5000/-. 3. Simple Imprisonment for 6 months, in default of payment of fine. 3. Under Section 302 of IPC [for committing murder of D-3 Shrawan Chouhan] 1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.5000/-. 3. Simple Imprisonment for 6 months, in default of payment of fine. 4. Under Section 307 of IPC 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years. 2. Fine of Rs.3000/-. 3. Simple Imprisonment for 3 months, in default of payment of fine. 5. Under Section 460 of IPC 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years. 2. Fine of Rs.3000/-. 3. Simple Imprisonment for 3 months, in default of payment of fine. All sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Prosecution’s case, in brief:- 3. On 27.11.2014, the appellant committed lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night and assaulted D-1 Vinay Kannouje, D-2 Sameer Khan and D-3 Shrawan Chouhan with iron-pipe on account of which they suffered grievous injuries and died and he also with the intention to kill the injured eye-witness, PW-3 Rajesh Kumar Sahu, assaulted him with the said iron-pipe causing serious injuries to him. 4. On 28.11.2014, PW-1 Raju Yadav, the Manager of Indian Broiler Farm, Gidhouri, lodged Merg Intimations (Exbts. P-1, P-2 & P-3) followed by F.I.R. (Ex. 4. On 28.11.2014, PW-1 Raju Yadav, the Manager of Indian Broiler Farm, Gidhouri, lodged Merg Intimations (Exbts. P-1, P-2 & P-3) followed by F.I.R. (Ex. P-4) stating that in the morning around 8:30 a.m., PW-4 Nikhlesh kumar Sahu, a worker of the said Farm, informed him on phone that the Farm is not open, on which he came to Gidhouri and along with PW-3 Nikhlesh Kumar Sahu and one Hemant Patel he went inside the Farm where he saw that D-1 Vinay Kannouje, D-2 Sameer Khan and D-3 Shrawan Chouhan were lying dead and Rajesh Kumar Sahu was writhing in pain and injuries suffered on his head, who was then taken to Government Hospital, Barpali for his treatment. 5. On the basis of the said report, wheels of investigation started running during which Crime Details Form (Ex. P-5) was prepared by the Investigating Officer, PW-30 K.R. Kosle. Inquest reports (Exbts. P-8, P-11 & P-13) in respect of D-1 Vinay Kannouje, D-3 Shrawan Chouhan and D-2 Sameer Khan were prepared respectively in presence of panch-witnesses and their dead-bodies were subjected to post-mortem. PW-26 Dr. Lokesh Sahu conducted the post-mortem of D-1, D-2 & D-3 vide Exbts. P-31, P-32 & P-33, though he reserved his opinion on the cause and nature of their death to be given after the FSL report is received. By property seizure memos (Exbts. P-14, P-15 & P-16), seizure of bloodstained and control soil was made from the spot where dead-bodies of D-1, D-2 & D-3 were found. Similarly, a threatening note vide Ex. P-17, mobiles phones vide Ex. P-18 and one Almirah and three empty bottles of liquor vide Ex. P-29 were seized from the spot. MLC of the injured eye-witness, PW-3 Rajesh Kumar Sahu, was conducted by PW-29 Dr. B.P. Baghel vide Ex. P-38, who referred the injured (PW-3) to higher center for CT Scan looking to the serious nature of injuries caused to him. 6. During investigation, the appellant was interrogated who confessed his crime of committing murder of D-1, D-2 & D-3 and causing serious injuries to PW-3 Rajesh Kumar Sahu, on the basis of which his memorandum statement (Ex. P-26) was recorded pursuant to which, 24 pages hand-writing notes vide Ex. P-19; an iron-pipe vide Ex. 6. During investigation, the appellant was interrogated who confessed his crime of committing murder of D-1, D-2 & D-3 and causing serious injuries to PW-3 Rajesh Kumar Sahu, on the basis of which his memorandum statement (Ex. P-26) was recorded pursuant to which, 24 pages hand-writing notes vide Ex. P-19; an iron-pipe vide Ex. P-20; a plastic bag, a full-pant, two woolen gloves, one set of shoes and one regzine purse containing driving licence of PW-3 Rajesh Kumar Sahu and his Voter ID vide Ex. P-21; one single line copy and one blue diary vide Ex. P-22, three iron keys vide Ex. P- 23; one Yamaha motorcycle No.CG12-AE/5559 vide Ex. P-24 and one Rs.50/- stamp paper vide Ex. P-25 were seized at the instant of the appellant. Seizure of Rs.90,000/- from PW-8 Naeem Khan vide Ex. P-8 and Rs.9500/- from PW-10 Ramkumari vide Ex. P-9 was also made. Seizure of sale-deed was made vide Ex. P-7 and stamps purchased in this regard were seized vide Ex. P-25 at the instance of DW-1 Dara Khan. By Ex. P-28, a stamp sale register was seized from PW-23 Monika Modi. Nazri Naksha (Ex. P-6) was also got prepared by the concerned Patwari. The seized iron-pipe was examined by PW-26 Dr. Lokesh Sahu, who vide his MLC report (Ex. P-36), opined that the injuries inflicted on the bodies of D-1, D-2 & D-3 can be caused by the said iron-pipe. PW-29 Dr. Baghel, vide his query report (Ex. P-39) also opined that the serious suffered by PW-3 Rajesh Kumar Sahu can be caused by the seized object. Ex. P-64 is the report of the hand writing expert. In FSL report (Ex. P-59), no chemical poison was found in the viscera of three deceased persons (D-1, D-2 & D-3). 7. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the concerned Magistrate, who took cognizance on the charge-sheet and the case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. After committal, the appellant appeared before learned Trial Court where charges were framed against him for offences under Sections 302 (three-counts), 307 and 460 of IPC, to which he denied and entreated for trial. 8. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 30 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-30 and produced on record documents vide Exhibits P-1 to P-65. 8. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 30 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-30 and produced on record documents vide Exhibits P-1 to P-65. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence produced by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, three witnesses have been examined as DW-1, DW-2 & DW-3. 9. On conclusion of the trial, learned Trial Court finally by impugned judgment dated 22.12.2016, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidences available on record, found the appellants guilty of committing the offences under Sections 302 (three- counts), 307 and 460 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above in the chart shown at second paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. Submissions of the parties: 10. Ms. Fauzia Mirza, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the testimony of solitary injured eye-witness, namely, Rajesh Sahu (PW- 03) is not of sterling quality having the ring of truth for considering him to be trustworthy, as for the first time he has stated before the Court that he is the eye-witness of the incident and have seen the appellant committing the crime and causing injuries to him. However, in his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, he did not state that the appellant has caused injuries to him or committed the crime in question. As such, there is major contradiction and omission in the court statement qua statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC of the so called injured eye-witness, namely, Rajesh Sahu (PW-03), therefore, his testimony is unworthy of reliance. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that admittedly, in the present case, the incident took place on 28.11.2014 and injured eye-witness- Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) was discharged from the hospital on 18.12.2014, whereas his statement under Section 161 of CrPC was recorded on 09.3.2015 i.e. after an inordinate delay of 2 ½ months, which also makes his statement untrustworthy and unreliable. Therefore, the testimony of injured eye-witness, namely, Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) is liable to be discarded. Therefore, the testimony of injured eye-witness, namely, Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) is liable to be discarded. Learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the decisions: (i) Josheph v. State of Kerala , [ (2003) 1 SCC 465 ] (ii) State of Karnataka v. Venkatesh and others , [ 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 539 ] ; (iii) Lahu Kamalakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra , [ (2013) 6 SCC 417 ] ; (iv) Sahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan , [ (2016) 4 SCC 96 ] ; (v) Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab , [ (2022) 9 SCC 402 ] ; (vi) Harbir Singh v. Shishpal & other , [ (2016) 16 SCC 418 ] ; (vii) Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab , [ (2024) 3 SCC 164 ] to buttress her submissions. 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would also submits that the statement of complainant, namely, Raju Yadav (PW-01) is also not trustworthy, as he has not stated that the appellant was residing with the deceased persons on the place of incident i.e. Gidhowri Godown, either in the FIR (Ex.P/04) or in his police statement. Accordingly, to the FIR (Ex.P/04), Raju Yadav (PW-01) has only stated that Rs.22,000/- is the amount of sale of that day, which they have received on 27.11.2014, however, no evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the fact that Rs.1,10,000/- was the amount of sale that was being kept by Rajesh Sahu (PW-03). Learned Senior counsel vehemently argued that though pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded on 17.12.2014 vide Ex.P/26, one iron pipe has been seized vide Ex.P/20, but as per the statement of Raju Yadav (PW-01) the said iron pipe was recovered from the well after 15 days. So far as seizure of purse containing driving license of Rajesh Kumar Sahu PW-03 and his voter ID vide Ex.P/21 is concerned, as per the statement of PW-17 Birbal and PW-19 Anand, though there is a seizure of purse but nothing has been mentioned that there was a seizure of driving license or voter ID card of PW-3 Rajesh Sahu. Even otherwise, no identification proceeding of the said purse from PW-3 Rajesh Sahu was conducted and, therefore, the seizure of the aforesaid articles is of no help to the prosecution. Even otherwise, no identification proceeding of the said purse from PW-3 Rajesh Sahu was conducted and, therefore, the seizure of the aforesaid articles is of no help to the prosecution. Further, the seizure of Rs.90,000/- has also been properly explained by DW-01 Dara Khan and, similarly, the seizure of Rs.9,500/- from Ramkumari (PW-10) does not support the case of the prosecution, as she has stated that the said amount has been given by the mother of the appellant. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that seizure of blood-stained clothes is also not supported by the seizure witnesses, namely, Dharmendra (PW-11) and Pyare Deharia (PW-12) and the FSL report with regard to the same is also not available to corroborate the presence of blood on the said seized clothes. Even otherwise, so far as the seizure of said blood stained clothes and the weapon of the offence from the appellant is concerned, no question has been asked about the same from the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 of CrPC, therefore, the seizure of said articles is of no use to the prosecution and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty for the offence in question. Learned Senior Counsel would rely upon Asraf Ali v. State of Assam , [ (2008) 16 SCC 328 ] and Kalicharan & others v. State of Uttar Pradesh , [ (2023) 2 SCC 583 ] to bolster her submissions on the point. 12. Learned Senior counsel further submits that even Dr. Lokesh Sahu (PW-26), who has conducted postmortem of the dead-bodies of the deceased persons (D1 D2 & D3) has not given exact opinion regarding cause of death of the deceased persons in their PM reports. Similarly, though the MLC report of injured- Rajesh Sahu (Ex.P/38), given by Dr. VP Baghel (PW-29) shows that the injuries No.01 to 03 have been caused by sharp object i.e. knife, sword and axe, but the same is not in conflict or in corroboration with the weapon of the offence (i.e. iron rod) allegedly seized at the instance of the appellant. Learned Senior Counsel would lastly submit that even the motive of the offence is also not clearly established in the present case. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the said charge on the basis of benefit of doubt. 13. Learned Senior Counsel would lastly submit that even the motive of the offence is also not clearly established in the present case. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the said charge on the basis of benefit of doubt. 13. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) is the injured eye-witness to the incident. Though there is some delay in recording the statement of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03), as he was hospitalized and undergoing treatment in the hospital, therefore, the delay caused in recoding the statement of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) was due to bonafide reason of ill- health and hospitalization of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03). As such, his testimony cannot be discarded on that ground. Even otherwise, no question has been asked from the IO- K.R. Kosle (PW-03) as to why there is a delay in recording the statement of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) under Section 161 of CrPC. Furthermore, neither Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) nor IO- KR Kosle (PW-30) have been cross- examined on the point that Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) is not the real eye-witness to the incident qua his previous statement (i.e. statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC) in terms of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of VK Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand , [ (2015) 9 SCC 588 ] . Therefore, Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) can be said to be the person who has clearly seen the incident of appellant causing murder of three deceased persons and, as such, his testimony cannot be discarded. Learned State counsel also submits that pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, iron pipe has been seized, in which, stains of blood were found and, further, according to the statement of Raju Yadav (PW- 01) and Rajesh Sahu (PW-03), motive of the offence has also been duly established in the present case, as it is clear that the appellant wanted to rob the cash collected at the poultry farm. As such, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant herein for the offence in question and, consequently, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. As such, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant herein for the offence in question and, consequently, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Death of the deceased persons (D1, D2 & D3) being homicidal in nature: 15. The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased persons (D1, D2 & D3) was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the postmortem reports (Ex.P/30, Ex.P/31 & Ex.P/32 respectively) and query reports (Ex.P/33, Ex.P/34 & Ex.P/35 respectively) given by Dr. Lokesh Sahu (PW-26), whereby it has clearly been opined that all three deceased persons suffered grievous injuries on their vital part of the body i.e. head and, due to said injury, death is also possible, if treatment is not accorded within time, which is duly proved by the statement of Dr. Lokesh Sahu (PW-26), who conducted postmortem of the dead-bodies of the deceased persons and also gave query reports (Ex.P/33, Ex.P/34 & Ex.P/35 respectively). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem reports (Ex.P/30, Ex.P/31 & Ex.P/32 respectively), query reports (Ex.P/33, Ex.P/34 & Ex.P/35 respectively) and the statement of Dr. Lokesh Sahu (PW-26), we are of the considered opinion that the death of all three deceased persons is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We hereby affirm the said finding. 16. Now the next question would be whether the appellant is the author of the crime in question or not ?, which we will consider in under the following points. Injured eye-witness- Rajesh Kumar Sahu (PW-03) 17. In the case at hand, Dr. B.P. Baghel (PW-29) has medically examined injured- Rajesh Kumar Sahu (PW- 03) firstly on 28.11.2014 and gave MLC report (Ex.P/38), in which, he found 03 lacerated wounds on his head which was caused by shape edged weapon and one more injury on his neck and, considering the nature of the injuries, he referred Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) to higher centre because he was required to undergo CT Scan of his brain, as he had suffered serious injuries which is likely to cause his death. Thereafter, Neurosurgeon- Dr. Thereafter, Neurosurgeon- Dr. SN Madharia (PW-25), treated Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, wherein he was brought in unconscious condition by Constable No.789, namely, Ram Kumar Sahu (not examined) and, upon CT Scan examination, it was found that Rajesh Sahu’s facial bone was broken and his left parietal bone was also found broken. Dr. SN Madharia (PW-25) has also stated that the injuries suffered by Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death, if treatment is not given within time. However, on improving his condition, Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) was discharged from the hospital on 18.12.2014. As such, from the MLC report of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) vide Ex.P/38 as also from the statements of Dr. B.P. Baghel (PW-29) and Dr. SN Madharia (PW- 25), it is quite clear that Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) is the injured witness, who has suffered serious injuries in the incident in question and after treatment recovered from the injuries and discharged from the hospital on 18.12.2014 after improvement in his health condition. Conviction on the basis of sole testimony of injured eye-witness: 18. In the matter of Joseph v. State of Kerala , [ (2003) 1 SCC 465 ] , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down the principle that where there is a sole witness to the incident, his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of evidence tendered by other witnesses or the material evidence placed on record and following was observed at para 13 :- “ 13 ...................Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact and, therefore, it is permissible for a court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eyewitness. But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with probabilities and inspires implicit confidence. By this standard, when the prosecution case rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eyewitness, it should be wholly reliable. But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with probabilities and inspires implicit confidence. By this standard, when the prosecution case rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eyewitness, it should be wholly reliable. Even though such witness is an injured witness and his presence may not be seriously doubted, when his evidence is in conflict with other evidence, the view taken by the trial court that it would be unsafe to convict the accused on his sole testimony cannot be stated to be unreasonable.” 19. In the matter of State of Haryana v. Inder Singh , [ (2002) 9 SCC 537 Page-538 Para-5 ] , it was held that it is not the quantity but the quality of the witnesses which matters for determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The testimony of a sole witness must be confidence-inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court. 20. In the case of Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh , [ (2012) 4 SCC 257 ] , their Lordships after referring the judgments in the matters of Joseph (supra) and Inder Singh (supra) finally held as under : “ 27 . The principles stated in these judgments are indisputable. None of these judgments say that the testimony of the sole eyewitness cannot be relied upon or conviction of an accused cannot be based upon the statement of the sole eyewitness to the crime. All that is needed is that the statement of the sole eyewitness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in the mind of the court and has to be corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to commission of the crime and involvement of the accused in committing such a crime.” 21. In the case of Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi ) , [ (2020) 19 SCC 165 ] , the following was observed at Para-16: “ 16. Thus, the finding of guilt of the two appellant-accused recorded by the two courts below is based on sole testimony of eyewitness PW 1. As a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of single eyewitness provided he is wholly reliable. Thus, the finding of guilt of the two appellant-accused recorded by the two courts below is based on sole testimony of eyewitness PW 1. As a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of single eyewitness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise [see Sunil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Sunil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 11 SCC 367 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1055] ].” 22. Taking into consideration the aforesaid guiding principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in above-quoted judgments (supra), it is established law that the Court can and may act on the testimony of single eyewitness provided he is wholly reliable and trustworthy. As such, in the present case, since Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) is the sole injured eye- witness to the incident, therefore, conviction on the basis of his testimony can be recorded, provided the same is reliable and trustworthy, which we will discuss in the later part of this judgment. Delay in recording the statement of eye-witness- Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) 23. Admittedly, the incident in question took place on 28.11.2014, prior to 08:30 AM, at Indian Broiler Farm, Gidhouri Bus Stand, Mahasamund and, thereafter, Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) was hospitalized and underwent treatment at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. As per the statement of Neurosurgeon- Dr. SN Madharia (PW- 25), on improving his condition, Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) was discharged from the hospital on 18.12.2014 and, thereafter, his statement under Section 161 of CrPC was recorded on 09.03.2015 and, on that basis, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is unexplained long delay in recording the statement of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03). As such, it makes his statement untrustworthy and unreliable by relying upon Josheph (supra) Lahu Kamlakar Patil (supra), Harbir Singh (supra). As such, it makes his statement untrustworthy and unreliable by relying upon Josheph (supra) Lahu Kamlakar Patil (supra), Harbir Singh (supra). However, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of UP v. Satish , [ (2005) 3 SCC 114 ] has held that mere delay in examination of witness would not be fatal if plausible and acceptable explanation has been offered and it is further held that unless the Investigating Officer is categorically asked as to why there is delay in examination of the witness, defence cannot get any advantage therefrom and their Lordships have observed in Para-18 & 20 as under: “ 18. As regards delayed examination of certain witnesses, this Court in several decisions has held that unless the Investigating officer is categorcially asked as to why there was delay in examination for the witnesses the defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that it there is any delay in examination of a particular witness the prosecution version become suspect. It would depend upon several factors. If the explanation offered for the delayed examination is plausible and acceptable and the court accepts the same as plausible, there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion [See Ranbir and Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1973) SC 1409, Bodhraj @ Rodha and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, [2002] 8 SCC 45 and Banti @ Guddu v. State of M.P., [2004] 1 SCC 414.] The High Court has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ganesh Bhayan Patel and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, [1978] 4 SCC 371. 19. xxx 20. It is to be noted that the explanation when offered by I.O. on being questioned on the aspect of delayed examination, by the accused has to be tested by the Court on the touchstone of credibility. If the explanation is plausible then no adverse inference can be drawn. On the other hand, if the explanation is found to be implausible, certainly the Court can consider it to be one of the factors to affect credibility of the witnesses who were examined belatedly. It may not have any effect on the credibility of prosecution's evidence tendered by the other witnesses.” 24. On the other hand, if the explanation is found to be implausible, certainly the Court can consider it to be one of the factors to affect credibility of the witnesses who were examined belatedly. It may not have any effect on the credibility of prosecution's evidence tendered by the other witnesses.” 24. The principle of law laid down in Satish (supra) has been followed with approval in a recent judgment rendered in the matter of Goverdhan and another v. State of Chhattisgarh , [ 2025 SCC Online SC 69 ] . 25. Coming to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in above-quoted judgments (supra), it is quite vivid that if the statement of IO- K.R. Kosle (PW-30) is seen, though he has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but no question has been asked from him as to why there is a delay in recording the statement of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03). However, though in the present case there is a delay about 45 days in recording the statement under Section 161 of CrPC of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03), but from the evidence available on record, specially medical evidence, the reason appears to be that he has suffered serious injury (fracture) on his brain and face, therefore, he was undergoing treatment in the hospital under the supervision of Neurosurgeon- Dr. SN Madharia (PW-25) and, from where, upon improving his condition, he was discharged from the hospital on 18.12.2014. But, still after discharging from the hospital, his condition was not completely well and, only upon completely getting fit, his statement under Section 161 of CrPC was recorded on 09.03.2015 and, that being the reason so, the defence could not raise any query with regard to the delay in recording the statement of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) under Section 161 of CrPC. Similar is the reason, the defence could not ask any question from IO- K.R. Kosle (PW-30) with regard to the delay caused in recording the statement of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03). Therefore, the defence cannot get any advantage for the delay caused in recording the statement of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) under Section 161 of CrPC. As such, the argument putforth in this behalf is liable to be and is hereby rejected. Contradiction in Rajesh Sahu’s (PW-03) statements recorded before the Court qua under Section 161 of CrPC 26. Therefore, the defence cannot get any advantage for the delay caused in recording the statement of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) under Section 161 of CrPC. As such, the argument putforth in this behalf is liable to be and is hereby rejected. Contradiction in Rajesh Sahu’s (PW-03) statements recorded before the Court qua under Section 161 of CrPC 26. Another submission made on behalf of the appellant which needs consideration by us is that in the police statement, Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) did not name the appellant herein, whereas for the first time while making statement before the Court he has stated that he had seen the appellant committing the crime in question and, therefore, his statement cannot be relied upon to hold that Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) is the eye-witness to the incident, as the same is just an afterthought to falsely implicate the appellant. However, a careful perusal of the statement of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) would show that he has not been cross-examined with reference to his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC and even his statement under Section 161 of CrPC has not been exhibited by the defence. Further, in Para-24 of his statement before the Court he has only stated that he has not named the assailant in his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC and for the first time he has named the assailant before the Court, which has been heavily relied upon by learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant to impeach the credit of PW-3 Rajesh Sahu. But, in this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of VK Mishra (supra) may be noticed herein profitably, in which, their Lordships have laid down the procedure to be followed when there is contradiction in previous statement of the witness and held in Para-15 to 17 as under: “ 15. Section 161 Cr.P.C. titled “Examination of witnesses by police” provides for oral examination of a person by any investigating officer when such person is supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The purpose for and the manner in which the police statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C can be used at any trial are indicated in Section 162 Cr.P.C. Section 162 Cr.P.C. reads as under: 162. Statements to police not to be signed–Use of statements in evidence. The purpose for and the manner in which the police statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C can be used at any trial are indicated in Section 162 Cr.P.C. Section 162 Cr.P.C. reads as under: 162. Statements to police not to be signed–Use of statements in evidence. (1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made: Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re- examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act. Explanation.- An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact. 16. Section 162 Cr.P.C. bars use of statement of witnesses recorded by the police except for the limited purpose of contradiction of such witnesses as indicated there. 16. Section 162 Cr.P.C. bars use of statement of witnesses recorded by the police except for the limited purpose of contradiction of such witnesses as indicated there. The statement made by a witness before the police under Section 161(1) Cr.P.C. can be used only for the purpose of contradicting such witness on what he has stated at the trial as laid down in the proviso to Section 162 (1) Cr.P.C. The statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded during the investigation are not substantive pieces of evidence but can be used primarily for the limited purpose:- (i) of contradicting such witness by an accused under Section 145 of Evidence Act; (ii) the contradiction of such witness also by the prosecution but with the leave of the Court and (iii) the re-examination of the witness if necessary. 17. Court cannot suo moto make use of statements to police not prove and ask question with reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the court. The words in Section 162 Cr.P.C. “if duly proved” clearly show that the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightway nor can be looked into but they must be duly proved for the purpose of contradiction by eliciting admission from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the investigating officer. Statement before the investigating officer can be used for contradiction but only after strict compliance with Section 145 of Evidence Act that is by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction. ” 27. In the instant case, the procedure, as laid down by their Lordships in VK Mishra (supra), has not been followed at all. Neither the attention of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) has been drawn towards his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC projecting contradiction nor upon the examination of IO- K.R. Kosle (PW-30), his attention has been drawn towards the contradiction made by Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) in his statement before the Court, as such, there is no contradiction in terms of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, as Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) has not been cross-examined with regard to his previous statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC before the police and his said statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC has also not been exhibited. Moreover, Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) has not been confronted with that part of his statement which the defence wanted to take advantage and, in absence of which, it cannot be held that his statement made before the Court is in contradiction with his police statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. Further, since neither Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) was confronted with his police statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC nor the same has been marked/exhibited to prove his contradiction and, further, IO- KR Kosle (PW-30) was also not confronted with regard to the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03), as such, the defence has failed to establish contradiction in the statement of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) in accordance with law and the argument raised in this behalf by learned Senior Counsel apaering for the appellant is hereby rejected. 28. Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) in his statement before the Court has clearly stated that on the date of offence i.e. on 28.11.2014 he alongwith the deceased persons (D1, D2 & D3) were in the Indian Boiler Farm, Gidhouri Bus Stand, as there they used to work and earlier the present appellant also used to work there, but thereafter he left the job and went to his village. On the date of offence, all the deceased persons (D1, D2 & D3) were staying in the Indian Boiler Farm, Gihdouri and in the almira Rs.1,10,000/- were kept. However, in the same night, the appellant came there from the back door at about 10:30 PM and, at that time, they all were going to sleep, but Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) opened the door and saw the appellant standing. Thereafter, the appellant asked him whether he can sleep for the night in the farm, as his sister has delivered baby and there is no place in his house to sleep and, ultimately, the appellant slept therein near the door. But, in the mid night when, Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) heard the hue and cry of the deceased persons, he woke up and saw the appellant was standing armed with blood-stained iron rod and, thereafter, the appellant assaulted him (Rajesh Sahu) by the said iron rod, due to which, he became unconscious. Further, Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) in Para-12 has stated that he has seen the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased persons. Further, Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) in Para-12 has stated that he has seen the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased persons. (Note: Since earlier no counsel was engaged on behalf of the appellant, but by court order dated 03.02.2016, when counsel from legal aid was provided to the appellant, Rajesh Sahu was further cross- examined). As such, from the careful perusal of the statement of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) it is quite clear that he is the injured eye-witness to the incident and the appellant was known to him, as he was the co-worker in the Indian Boiler Farm, Gidhouri, where Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) alongwith all the deceased persons (D1, D2 & D3) used to work and, on the date of offence, the appellant came in order to commit loot of Rs.1,10,000/- kept in the almirah of the farm and on the pretext of no place to sleep in his house, the appellant slept in the farm and, in the night hours, when all were sleeping, the appellant assaulted the deceased persons and injured- Rajesh Sahu (PW-03). In the cross-examination of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) nothing has been brought to hold that he is not the eye-witness to the incident or he is falsely implicating the appellant herein. Therefore, we see no good ground to impeach or discredit his statement to hold that he is not a reliable and trustworthy eye-witness to the incident. As such, the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) is the injured eye-witness and he is the person who has seen the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased persons (D1, D2 & D3) and caused their murder on the date and time of the offence. Other incriminating circumstances in the present case: 29. Furthermore, apart from the direct evidence of Rajesh Sahu (PW-03), the case of the prosecution is also based on circumstantial evidence in shape of motive on the part of the appellant to commit the crime in question and seizure of the weapon of the offence and blood stained clothes pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant. Motive of the offence: 30. Motive of the offence: 30. With regard to motive, it is the case of the prosecution that since the appellant wanted to commit loot of Rs.1,10,000/- kept in the almirah of the Indian Boiler Farm, Gidhouri, the appellant, on the pretext of no place to sleep in his house, as his sister has delivered baby, entered into the farm in the mid night of 28.11.2014 and, in the late night, when all were sleeping he assaulted all the deceased persons (D1, D2 & D3) including injured- Rajesah Sahu (PW-03) and committed loot of the said amount. In this regard, though Rajesh Sahu (PW-03) has supported the case of the prosecution, but Naeem Khan (PW-08) has also stated that on the next date to the date of offence i.e. on 29.11.2014, the father of the appellant, namely, Darakhan (DW-01) has purchased a house from him by paying Rs.90,000/- in shape of sale consideration. Even the sale-deed in this regard has also been seized vide Ex.P/07. Furthermore, the remaining looted amount i.e. 9,500/- has been seized from Ramkumari (PW-10), who has stated before the Court that the appellant has given Rs.9,500/- to her on the next date to the date of incident, as he has borrowed Rs.6,500/- from her. Naeem Khan (PW-08) and Ramkumari (PW-10) were subjected to some length of cross-examination, but nothing could be extracted from them to hold that they are telling lie before the Court in order to falsely implicate the appellant herein. Even, the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC has not explained the source of the aforesaid amount, which he has given to his father for executing sale-deed and to Ramkumari (PW-10). As such, on the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record, the motive on the part of the offence is quite established and we find no good reason to disbelieve the same. Seizure of articles from the possession of the appellant: 31. In the case at hand, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded vide Ex.P/26, an iron-pipe vide Ex. P-20; a full-pant, two woolen gloves, one set of shoes alongwith one regzine purse containing driving licence of PW-3 Rajesh Kumar Sahu and his Voter ID vide Ex. P-21. Seizure of articles from the possession of the appellant: 31. In the case at hand, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded vide Ex.P/26, an iron-pipe vide Ex. P-20; a full-pant, two woolen gloves, one set of shoes alongwith one regzine purse containing driving licence of PW-3 Rajesh Kumar Sahu and his Voter ID vide Ex. P-21. However, the iron rod seized from the appellant was subject to query to the expert and, as per Query Report (Ex.P/36), it has been opined by Lokesh Sahu (PW-26) that injuries found over the body of the deceased could by caused by the iron rod, which was seized from the appellant. Similarly, in the clothes (a full-pant, two woolen gloves, one set of shoes) seized from the appellant, stains of blood were found. The seizure of said articles have duly been supported by the seizure witnesses, namely, Birbal (PW-17) & Anand Banjare (PW-19). As such, we find no good ground to disbelieve the recovery of said articles pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant. 32. In view of foregoing analysis, since the deceased of the deceased persons (D1 D2 & D3) have been proved to be homicidal in nature and the appellant herein has been found to be the author of the crime in question on the basis of testimony of injured eye-witness coupled with other circumstantial evidence available on record i.e. motive and seizure of blood stained clothes and weapon of the offence from the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant herein for the offences in question. We do not find any good ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court while convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence in question. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court dated 22.12.2016 is hereby affirmed being well-merited. 33. Consequently, this criminal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed . No cost. 34. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court dated 22.12.2016 is hereby affirmed being well-merited. 33. Consequently, this criminal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed . No cost. 34. The Registry of this Court is directed to sent a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing, informing him that he is at liberty to assail this judgment before Hon’ble Supreme Court by preferring an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India with the aid and assistance of the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee or that of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.