KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAOversusSTATE OF A.P.

                         [2012) 9 S.C.R. 1086

A                      KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAO
                                    V.
                           STATE OF A.P.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2008)
                        DECEOMBER 11, 2012
B
        [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.)

           Penal Code, 1860- s.302 - Murder- Eyewitness account
    - A/legation that appellant hacked the deceased with an axe
C   as he suspected that the latter was having illicit relationship
    with his wife - Conviction of appellant u/s.302 /PC - Justification
    - Held: Justified - PW2 (wife of deceased) and PW3 (brother
    of deceased) were crucial witnesses to establish that it was the
    appellant who had committed the crime - Evidence of PW2
D   was trustworthy and it cannot be said that she was implicating
    the appellant - She had no motive to do so as well - Direct
    evidence of illicit intimacy cannot always be expected, but,
    taking into consideration the evidence of PW5 and PWs 8 and
    9, the prosecution could establish that appellant had a grudge
E   or ill-feeling towards the deceased that led him to commit the
    murder - Prosecution also proved that axe was seized from
    the scene of occurrence by PW 15, in the presence of PWs
    1 and 11 - Also, blood of human origin was detected on the
    axe - Further, there was sufficient explanation for the delay of
F   10 hours in intimating the offence to the police - The
    prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the
    appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

       FIR - Evidentiary value of - Held: FIR is not a substantive
  piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the
G statement of the maker u/s.161 of the Evidence Act or to
  contradict him u/s. 145 of the Act - It is not the requirement of
  the law that the minutest details be recorded in the FIR lodged
  immediately after the occurrence - Evidence Act, 1872 -
  ss.145 and 161.
H                               1086
     KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAO v. STATE OF A.P.                1087


      Motive - When irrelevant • Held: Motive would be           A
irrelevant when there is un-impeachable oral evidence.

     The prosecution case was that the accused-appellant
committed the murder of the deceased as he suspected
that the latter was having illicit relationship with his wife.   8
The incident allegedly occurred at midnight when the
deceased was sleeping in his house with his wife PW2.
PW3, the brother of the deceased, was also sleeping
inside the said house at that time.

     An axe was allegedly used as the weapon of offence.         C
The deceased had sustained bleeding head injuries.
PW4, the father of the deceased, informed about the
death of the deceased to PW1, the Village Administrative
Officer, who scribed the report Ex.P1, and presented the
same to the police and, on the basis of the same, PW14,          D
Sub Inspector of Police issued the FIR Ex. P14. The
Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section
302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The
conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High
Court.                                                           E
     In the instant appeal, the appellant contended that
the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 could not be believed since
they were interested witnesses; that the names of PWs
2 and 3 did not find any place in Ex.P1 report and, as
such, their testimony be considered only with suspicion;         F
that omission to mention the names of the eye-witnesses
in the FIR and unexplained delay in despatch of FIR
would throw serious doubt on the prosecution case; that
the prosecution miserably failed to prove the alleged
motive for the commission of the offence and, as such,           G
the appellant be given the benefit of doubt; and further
that there was considerable delay in registering the FIR,
and thus the appellant was entitled to be acquitted.

     Dismissing the appeal, the Court                            H
    1088    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 9 S C.R

A        HELD: 1. PWs 2 and 3 are crucial witnesses in this
    case to establish that it was the accused-appellant who
    had committed the crime. PW2, wife of the deceased, had
    clearly deposed that she herself and daughter were
    sleeping on a cot and the deceased was sleeping on the
B   other cot in the same room. PW3, brother of the
    deceased, and other family members were sleeping inside
    the house. In the midnight on 13.6.2001, the deceased
    raised a cry as "Ammo". On hearing the cries of the
    deceased, she woke up and switched on the light and
C   found the appellant near the deceased with an axe. Out
    of fear, she called PW 3 and he rushed in. On seeing PW
    3, the appellant ran away from the place throwing the axe
    used for the commission of the offence. The evidence of
    PW2 is trustworthy and it cannot be said that she is
    implicating the appellant. She has no motive to do so as
0
    well. PW3, in his deposition, has categorically stated that
    he has chased the appellant, but when PW2 had
    inforri1ed him that the blood was bleeding from the head
    of the deceased, he came back. PW3 then informed the
    incident to the brother-in-law of the deceased. PWs 3 and
E   5 shifted the deceased to a private hospital in a tractor
    and the dead body of the deceased was brought back at
    3.00 am on 14.6.2001. PW3 then informed the incident to
    the brother of the deceased - PW 4 through telephone.
    PW3 has categorically stated that the appellant had
F   hacked the deceased with an axe and ran away and he
    found the axe at the scene of occurrence. There is no
    reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 3. PW 3 also had
    no reason to implicate the appellant in this crime. [Para
    9) [1095-B-G)
G
       2. PWs 8 and 9 stated that the appellant had indicated
  to them that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with
  his wife. It was stated that the appellant had informed
  them that he was even prepared to go to jail by beating
H the deceased, if the deceased had not stopped that illicit
     KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAO v. STATE OF A.P.               1089


intimacy. PW13, the doctor, who conducted the post-             A
mortem, opined that the deceased died due to shock and
the head injury. PW15, the Investigating Officer, stated
that he had visited the scene of offence at about 12.45
am on 14.6.2001 and seized the blood stained earth,
material objects and conducted the inquest over the dead        B
body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post-
mortem examination. PW14, Sub-Inspector of Police,
stated that he had registered the crime and issued the FIR.
Ex.P1 report clearly discloses the commission of the
offence by the appellant. There is no necessity of the          c
detailed narration of the incident, as to how PWs2 and 3
saw it, in the FIR. PWs 2 and 3 after all are not the authors
of the complaint. Their statements cannot be disbelieved
on the ground that their finding the appellant on the
scene of occurrence with an axe, has not found any              0
place in the FIR. [Para 10] [1095-H; 1096-A-D]

     3. FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can
only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker
under Section 161 of the Evidence Act or to contradict
him under Section 145 of the Act. It is not the requirement     E
of the law that the minutest details be recorded in the FIR
lodged immediately after the occurrence. [Para 11] [1096-
E-F]

     Surjit Singh @ Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab 1993        F
Supp. (1) SCC 208: 1992 (2) SCR 786 and Ravi Kumar v.
State of Punjab (2005) 9 SCC 315: 2005 (2) SCR 548 - relied
on.

     4. The appellant submitted that the prosecution had
miserably failed to prove the alleged motive for the            G
commission of the offence, however, EtVen assuming that
the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the
motive for the commission of the offence, when there is
un-impeachable oral evidence, the motive would be
irrelevant. [Para 12] [1096-G; 1097-B]                          H
    1090    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A        Baitullah and Another v. State of UP. (1998) 1 SCC 509;
    State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh (1999) 4 SCC 370:
    1999 (1) SCR 1033 and Nathuni Yada'( and Another v. State
    of Bihar and Another (1998) 2 sec 238 - relied on.

       5. The direct evidence of illicit intimacy cannot
8
  always be expected. But, taken into consideration of the
  evidence of PW 5 and PWs 8 and 9, the prosecution could
  establish that the appellant had a grudge or ill-feeling
  towards the deceased that led him to commit the murder.
C PWs 2 and 3 found the appellant with M06 (axe) which
  was used for the commission of the offence. PWs 5 and
  9 also stated that in their evidence that they found the axe
  near the cot at the scene of the offence. The prosecution
  also proved that M06 axe was seized from the scene of
  occurrence by PW 15, in the presence of PW 1 and 11.
D M06 axe was also sent to R.F.S.L. for analysis and from
  Ex.P18 report, it was observed that the blood of human
  origin was detected on M06 axe. Therefore, the
  contention raised by the appellant that M06 was planted,
  cannot be accepted. [Para 14] [1097-F-H; 1098-A]
E
       6. There is also no basis in the contention raised on
  behalf of the appellant that there was delay in informing
  the incident to the police. The incident had happened at
  the midnight of 13.6.2001. The deceased was taken to the
F private hospital by PWs 3 and 5 in a tractor of PW 7,
  where he was declared dead. The dead body of the
  deceased was brought back to the house at about 3.00
  am. PW 4, father of the deceased, then informed the death
  of the deceased to PW 1, the Village Administrative
G Officer, at about 8.00 am on 14.6.2001. PW 14, Sub-
  Inspector of Police, stated that he had registered the
  complaint after 10 hours from the time of the incident, i.e.
  in the morning of 14.6.2001. Not only that there was no
  inordinate delay in informing the incident to the police,
  there has been sufficient explanation for the delay of 10
H
      KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAO v. STATE OF A.P.            1091


hours in intimating the offence to the police. [Paras 15,     A
17] [1098-B-D; 1099-D)

    State of West Bengal v. Ori/a/ Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73;
Jahoor and Others v. State of U.P. 1999 Supp (1) SCC 372;
Tara Singh & Others v. State of Punjab 1991 Supp (1) SCC      B
536; Jamna v. State of U.P. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 185 and
Ravinder Kumar and Another v. State of Punjab (2001) 7 SCC
690: 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 463 - relied on.

     Madudanal Augusti v. State of Kera/a (1980) 4 SCC 425
- cited.                                                      C

    7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Sessions Court and the High Court correctly came to the
conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in
establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond all            0
reasonable doubt. [Para 18) [1099-F]

                    Case Law Reference:
     (1980) 4 sec 425         cited               Para 6
     1992 (2) SCR 786          relied on          Para 11     E

     2005 (2) SCR 548          relied on          Para 11
     (1998) 1 sec 509          relied on          Para 13
     1999 (1) SCR 1033         relied on          Para 13     F
     (1998) 2 sec 230          relied on          Para 13
     (1994) 1 sec 73           relied on          Para 16
     1999 supp (1) sec 372 relied on              Para 16
                                                              G
     1991 Supp (1) sec 536 relied on              Para 16
     1994 Supp (1) sec 185 relied on              Para 16
     2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 463 relied on            Para 16
                                                              H
    1092    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2012] 9 S.C.R.


A       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 316 of 2008.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 03.11.2006 of the High
    Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal
    Appeal No. 2480 of 2004.
8
        Ajay Sharma for the Appellant.

        Shishir Pinaki, Amjid Mazbool, D. Mahesh Babu for the
    Respondent.
c       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The suspicion that the
  deceased had illicit relationship with the wife of the accused
  was the reason for this mid-night murder. The accused had
D disclosed the same to PWs 8 and 9 and requested them to
  warn the deceased, or else, the accused announced that he
  would deal with the same and was even prepared to go to jail.
  PWs 8 and 9 warned the deceased, but the deceased reacted
  stating that the accused was only suspecting him.
E
       2. At mid-night 12 O'clock on 13.6.2001, the deceased
  was sleeping on the western side of Pancha of his house along
  with wife PW 2. PW 3, brother of the deceased, was also
  sleeping inside the house along with the children of the
F deceased. At midnight PW 2 heard the cries of the deceased
  and woke up and saw the accused standing near the deceased
  with an axe. PW2 then called PW 3 who chased the accused,
  but he escaped leaving the axe at the spot. Noticing that the
  deceased was bleeding with head injury, PW 3 along with PW
  5, brother-in-law of the deceased, took the deceased in a
G tractor of PW 12 to a private hospital of PW 7, where the
  deceased was declared dead. Later, PW 4, father of the
  deceased, informed the death of the deceased to PW 1, the
  Village Administrative Officer at 8.00 am on 14.6.2001. PW 1
  scribed the report - Ex.P1 - and presented the same to the
H
     KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAO v. STATE OF A.P.                 1093
           [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

police on 14.6.2001 and, on the basis of the same, PW 14,          A
Sub-Inspector of Police registered Crime No. 34 of 2001 and
\ssued the FIR Ex.P14.

      3. PW 15, Inspector of Police, conducted the investigation
and he visited the scene of occurrence and completed other         8
formalities, including the inquest over the dead body of the
deceased. PW 15 also requisitioned the services of the dog
squad and seized the material object including the axe which
was used for the commission of the offence. PW 13, the Civil
Assistant Surgeon, held autopsy over the dead body and             C
opined that the cause of death was due to shock and head
injury.

     4. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the
accused, examined PW 1 to PW 15 and marked Ex. P1 to P18
and also MOs 1 to 7. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence    0
was adduced, but Ex. 01 to 4 were marked. On conclusion of
the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied all
incriminating materials appeared against him in the prosecution
evidence.                                                          E

     5. Learned Sessions Judge, after completion of the trial
and on going through the evidence, found the accused guilty
of the offence under Section 302 I PC and sentenced him to life
imprisonment, vide its judgment dated 14.9.2004. Aggrieved         F
by the same, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 2480 of
2004 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and
sentence awarded by the Sessions Court. Aggrieved by the
same, this appeal has been preferred.
                                                                   G
     6. Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate-on-Record, appearing on
behalf of the appellant, submitted that the evidence of PWs 2
and 3 cannot be believed since they are interest witnesses.
Further, it was also pointed that the name of PWs 2 and 3 do
not find any place Ex.P1 report and, as such, their testimony      H
    1094     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A be considered only with suspicion. Learned counsel submitted
  placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Madudanal
  Augusti v. State of Kera/a (1980) 4 SCC 425 and submitted
  that omission to mention the names of the eye-witnesses in the
  FIR and unexplained delay in despatch of FIR would throw
B serious doubt on the prosecution case. Learned counsel also
  submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
  alleged motive for the commission of the offence and, as such,
  the accused be given the benefit of doubt. Further, it was also
  pointed out that there was considerable delay in registering the
c FIR, hence, there is scope for concoctions and confabulations.
  All these factors, according to the learned counsel, would be
  sufficient to acquit the accused giving the benefit of doubt.

          7. Shri Shishir Pinaki, learned counsel appearing on behalf
    of the State, submitted that there is no illegality in the findings
D   recorded by the Sessions Court, which were confirmed by the
    High Court. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is reliable and crucial
    to the prosecution case. Further, it was also pointed out that
    the axe used in the commission of the offence was also
    recovered from the spot. Learned counsel also submitted that
E   there was no considerable delay in lodging the FIR and if, at
    all, there was some delay, that has been clearly explained and
    that explanation has been accepted both by the Sessions Court
    and the High Court. Learned counsel also submitted that the
    motive for the commission of crime has been established and
F   the evidence of PWs 8 and 9 would indicate that the accused
    was suspecting that the deceased had illicit intimacy with his
    wife PW 2. Learned counsel further submitted that even
    assuming that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving
    the motive, even then there is sufficient ocular evidence to prove
G   that the accused had committed the offence. Learned counsel
    submitted that there is no reason to upset the concurrent
    findings recorded by the Sessions Court as well as the High
    Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
    adduced by the prosecution as well as the defence.
H
     KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAO v. STATE OF A.P.                 1095
           [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

    8. We are, in this case, concerned only with the question     A
whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt and the Sessions Court and the
High Court have rightly reached the conclusion that the accused
has committed the offence.
                                                                  B
     9. PWs 2 and 3 are crucial witnesses in this case to
establish that it was the accused who had committed the crime.
PW 2, wife of the deceased, had clearly deposed that she
herself and daughter were sleeping on a cot and the deceased
was sleeping on the other cot in the same room. PW3, brother      C
of the deceased, and other family members were sleeping
inside the house. In the midnight on 13.6.2001, the deceased
raised a cry as "Ammo". On hearing the cries of the deceased,
she woke up and switched on the light and found the accused
near the deceased with an axe. Out of fear, she called PW 3
and he rushed in. On seeing PW 3, the accused ran away from       D
the place throwing the axe used for the commission of the
offence. In our view, the evidence of PW 2 is trustworthy and
we have no reason to disbelieve that she is implicating the
accused and she has no motive to do so as well. PW 3, in his
deposition, has categorically stated that he has chased the       E
accused, but when PW 2 had informed him that the blood was
bleeding from the head of the deceased, he came back. PW
3 then informed the incident to the brother-in-law of the
deceased. PWs 3 and 5 shifted the deceased to a private
hospital in a tractor and the dead body of the deceased was       F
brought back at 3.00 am on 14.6.2001. PW 3 then informed
the incident to the brother of the deceased - PW 4 through
telephone. PW3 has categorically stated that the accused had
hacked the deceased with an axe and ran away and he found
the axe at the scene of occurrence. We have no reason to          G
disbelieve the evidence of PW 3. PW 3 also had no reason to
implicate the accused in this crime.

     10. PWs 8 and 9 stated that the accused had indicated
to them that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with his    H
    1096     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 9 S. C.R.


A wife. It was stated that the accused had informed them that he
  was even prepared to go to jail by beating the deceased, if the
  deceased had not stopped that illicit intimacy. PW 13, the
  doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, opined that the
  deceased died due to shock and the head injury. PW 15, the
B Investigating Officer, stated that he had visited the scene of
  offence at about 12.45 am on 14.6.2001 and seized the blood
  stained earth, material objects and conducted the inquest over
  the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for
  post-mortem examination. PW 14, Sub-Inspector of Police,
C stated that he had registered the crime No. 34 of 2001 and
  issued the FIR. Ex.P1 report clearly discloses the commission
  of the offence by the accused. There is no necessity of the
  detailed narration of the incident, as to how PWs2 and 3 saw
  it, in the FIR. PWs 2 and 3 after all are not the authors of the
  complaint. Their statements cannot be disbelieved on the
0
  ground that their finding the accused on the scene of
  occurrence with an axe, has not found any place in the FIR.

        11. This Court in Surjit Singh @ Gurmit Singh v. State of
  Punjab 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 208, held that the FIR is not a
E substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to
  corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 161 of
  the Evidence Act or to contradict him under Section 145 of the
  Act. It is not the requirement of the law that the minutest details
  be recorded in the FIR lodged immediately after the
F occurrence. Reference may also be made to the judgment of
  this Court in Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab (2005) 9 SCC 315.

         12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
  that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the alleged
  motive for the commission of the offence. In Ex.P1, it was
G mentioned that the accused killed the deceased in view of the
  illicit intimacy of his wife with the deceased. Prior to the
  commission of the offence, about one month back, the accused
  had informed PW 5 on the illicit affairs of his wife with the
  deceased and asked him to advise the deceased to deter from
H
      KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAO v. STATE OF A.P.                  1097
            [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

that. PW 5 along with PWs 8 and 9 would indicate that the             A
accused had carried the feeling that the deceased was having
some illicit relationship with his wife. Assuming that the
prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the motive for
the commission of the offence, when there is un-impeachable
oral evidence, the motive would be irrelevant.                        B

      13. In Baitul/ah and Another v. State of U.P. (1998) 1 SCC
509, this Court has taken the view that where a murderous
assault has been established by clear ocular evidence, the
motive pales into insignificance. In State of Himachal Pradesh        C
v. Jeet Singh (1999) 4 SCC 370, this Court held that it is a
sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done
with a motive, but its corollary is not that no criminal offence
would have been committed if the prosecution has filed to prove
the precise motive of the accused to commit it and the
prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire          D
for the accused towards the victim. This Court held that it is also
impossible for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of
the mentai disposition of an offender towards the person whom
he offended. Reference may also be made to the judgments
of this Court in Nathuni Yadav and Another v. State of Bihar          E
and Another (1998) 2 SCC 238.

     14. The direct evidence of illicit intimacy cannot always be
expected. But, taken into consideration of the evidence of PW
5 and PWs 8 and 9, the prosecution could establish that the           F
accused had a grudge or ill-feeling towards the deceased that
led him to commit the murder. PWs 2 and 3 found the accused
with M06 (axe) which was used for the commission of the
offence. PWs 5 and 9 also stated that in their evidence that they
found the axe near the cot at the scene of the offence. The           G
prosecution also proved that M06 axe was seized from the
scene of occurrence by PW 15, in the presence of PW 1 and
11. M06 axe was also sent to R.F.S.L., Vijayawada for analysis
and from Ex.P18 report dated 4.8.2001, it was observed that
the blood of human origin was detected on M06 axe. Therefore,
                                                                      H
    1098    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the
  appellant accused that M06 was planted, cannot be accepted.

       15. We are also not impressed by the contention raised
  on behalf of the appellant that there was delay in informing the
  incident to the police. The incident had happened at the
8
  midnight of 13.6.2001. The deceased wa~ taken to the private
  hospital by PWs 3 and 5 in a tractor of PW 7, where he was
  declared dead. The dead body of the deceased was brought
  back to the house at about 3.00 am. PW 4, father of the
  deceased, then informed the death of the deceased to PW 1,
C the Village Administrative Officer, at about 8.00 am on
  14.6.2001. PW 14, Sub-Inspector of Police, stated that he had
  registered the complaint after 10 hours from the time of the
  incident, i.e. in the morning of 14.6.2001. Learned counsel for
  the appellant, as we have already indicated, pointed out that
D the delay in reporting the incident to the police cause serious
  suspicion on the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. It was pointed out
  that immediately after the alleged incident, PW 3 had the
  occasion to pass through Martur village, but had not reported
  the same to the police. The delay in registering the FIR,
E according to the learned counsel, weakens the prosecution
  case. We find no basis in the contention raised by the counsel.

       16. This Court in State of West Bengal v. Ori/al Jaiswal
  (1994) 1 SCC 73 held that the delay in filing the FIR ipso facto
F could not go to show that the case against the accused is false.
  This Court in Jahoor and Others v. State of U.P. 1999 Supp
  (1) SCC 372, Tara Singh & Others v. State of Punjab 1991
  Supp (1) SCC 536 and Jamna v. State of U.P. 1994 Supp (1)
  sec 185, has held that where there is a delay in making the
G FIR, the Court is to look at the causes for it and if such causes
  are not contributable to any effort to concoct a version, no
  consequence shall be attached to the mere delay in lodging the
  FIR. In Tara Singh (supra), this Court held as follows:

        "It is well-settled that the delay in giving the FIR by itself
H       cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case.
      KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAO v. STATE OF A.P.                   1099
            [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

    Knowing the Indian conditions as they are we cannot               A
    expect these villagers to rush to the police station
    immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is,
    the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot
    be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude
    in giving the report to the police. At times being grief-         8
    stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately
    occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is
    but natural in these circumstances for them to take some
    time to go to the police station for giving the report ..... "

The view expressed in the above mentioned judgments was               C
later followed by this Court in Ravinder Kumar and Another v.
State of Punjab (2001) 7 SCC 690.

     17. We are of the view that the principle laid down by this
Court in the above mentioned judgments is squarely applicable         D
to the facts of the present case. Not only that there was no
inordinate delay in informing the incident to the police, there has
been sufficient explanation for the delay of 10 hours in
intimating the offence to the police. We, therefore, find no basis
in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for         E
the appellant.

     18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the view that the Sessions Court and the High Court have
correctly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has
succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond all         F
reasonable doubt.

    19. The appeal, therefore, lacks in merits and accordingly
dismissed.
                                                                      G
8.8.8.                                        Appeal dismissed.