STATE OF RAJASTHANversusCHANDGI RAM & ORS.

                  [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1121


                 STATE OF RAJASTHAN                           A
                             V.

                  CHANDGI RAM & ORS.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2008)
                                                              B
                  SEPTEMBER 09, 2014
   [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRFAHIM KALIFULLA AND .
                 SHIVA KIRTI S_INGH, JJ.]
       Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 r/w 34 and s. 452 -          c
Prosecution case that victim beaten mercilessly with iron rod,
iron pipe and lathis by each of the accused, resulting in his
 death - Incident took place in the night in a remote vii/Age
where sufferers of the incident were widow and her two minor
children - Conviction and sentence uls. 302134 ands. 452- 0
Set aside by High Court - On appeal, held: High Court not
justified in interfering with the order of conviction - Eye
 witnesses account of the witnesses-wife, minor children and
others, convincing and corroborative as regards the
occurrence- Testimony of the said witnesses should not be E
discarded solely on the ground that they were related to the
deceased - Recoveries of the weapons, medical evidence
and FSL reports supported the prosecution case -
Furthermore, the plea that there was delay in lodging of the
FIR cannot be accepted - Thus, the judgment of the High
 Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored - -F
Evidence - Witnesses.
     Allowing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1.1 The reasoning of the Division Bench in
concluding that the offence was not made out, was             G
mainly on the ground thatthere was delay in the lodging
of the FIR and the conduct of the witnesses as spoken
to by them did not inspire confidence. When the High
Court interfered with the conviction imposed by the trial
court, it ought to have examined the evidence                 H
                           1121
1122·     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A meticulously and expressed cogent and convincing
   reasons as to why· the detailed cbnsideration of the
   evidence did not inspire confidence in order to interfere
   with the conclusion of the trial court. The High Court
   miserablyfailed'to carry out the said exercise and without
 B assigning reasons, much less convincing reasons,
   chose to interfere with the conviction imposed by the
   trial court in a light hearted manner. [Para 28][1139-F-H;
   1140-A-B]
      1.2 The eye witnesses account of the concerned
 C witnesses PW-1-wife of deceased, PW-3-daughter of
      deceased aged 7 % years, PW-15-son of deceased aged
      6 years and PW-8 and PW-12 were all convincing and
      were corroborative in every minute aspect of the
      occurrence, the involvement of each one of the accused,
 D the weapons used by them in that process and the
      ultimate death of the d_eceased after such severe beating
      with the weapons used. The evidence of the witnesses
    . should' not be discarded solely on the ground that the
     ·said witnesses are related to the deceased. Their version
 E was natural and there was nothing to suspect their
      version in narrating the occurrence. The defence version
      was rightly. rejected by the trial court as the same was
      wholly unreliable. Apart from eye witnesses account, it
   · is found thatthe recoveries of the weapons, the medical
 F evidence and the FSL reports fully supported the case
      of the prosecution. The judgment of the trial court ought
      not to have been interfered by the High Court. Therefore,.
      the judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of
      the trial court is restored. [Para 29, 30][1140-~-F]
 G
             Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1989 Supp. (2)
             SCC 21 ; Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Another v. State
             of Maharashtra 2012 (9) SCR 1173 : (2013) 6
           . sec 417 - distinguised.
  H
   STATE OF RAJASTHANv. CHANDGI RAM &ORS.                   1123


    . State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh and another         A
      2011 (5) scR 1 : (2011) 4 sec 786 ;
      Shivasharanappa and others v. State of Karnataka
      2013 (5) SCR 1104: (2013) 5 SCC 705; Mano
      Dutt and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2012
      (3 ) SCR 686 : (2012) 4 SCC 79 ; Dinesh Kumar         B
      v. State of Rajasthan 2008 (11) SCR 843: (2008)
    · 8 SCC 270 ;· Yeshwant and others The State of
      Maharashtra 1973 (1) SCR 291 : (1972) 3 SCC
      639 ; Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa 1987 (2)
      SCR 1096 : (1987) 3 SCC 480 ; Raghunath v.            C
      State of Haryana and another 2002 (4) Suppl.
       SCR 130 : (2003) 1 SCC 398 ; Din Dayal v. Raj
      Kumar alias Raju and Others (1999) SCC (Crl.)
      892 ; Mahtab Singh and Another v. State of Uttar
      Pradesh 2009 (5) SCR 848: (2009) 13 SCC 670           D
    - referred to.
                 CASE LAW REFERENCE
1973 (1) SCR 291           referred to         Para 7
j987 (2) SCR 1096          referred to         Para 7, 27    E
(1999) sec (Crl.) 892      referred to         Para 7, 25
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 130 referred to            Para 7, 27
                                                            .,
2009 (5) SCR 848           referred to         Para 7, 26
                                                             F
2011 (5) SCR 1             referred to        . Para 13
2013 (5) SCR 1104          referred to         Para 14
2012 (3) SCR 686           referred to         Para 17
2008 (11) SCR 843          referred to         Para 18
                                                            G
1989 Supp. (2) sec 21      distinguished       Para 23
2012 (9) SCR 1173          distinguished       Para 24


                                                            H
1124         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
       Appeal No. 937 of 2008.
              From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2007 passed
       by the High Court of Rajasthan, at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B.
       Criminal Appeal No. 977 of 2002.
 B            Ram Naresh Yadav and Milind Kumar, Advs. for the
       Appellant.
              Abhishek Gupta and Sarad Kumar Singhania, Advs. for
       the Respondents.
 c            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.
              1. This appeal, at the instance of the State of Rajasthan
       is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the
       High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench dated 08.02.2007 in
 D     D.B. Criminal Appeal No.977of2002.
              ~~- By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench set
       aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the
       Respondents-accused by the trial Court in Sessions Case
       No.3/2001 (108/2000) vide judgment dated 10.07.2002. The
 E     trial Court found the Respondents-accused guilty of the offence
       under Section 302 read with 34, IPC for which they were
       sentenced to life imprisonment, apart from imposing a fine of
       Rs.500/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment
       for 15 days each. They were also convicted for the offence
 F     under Section 452 IPC and sentenced to 3 years rigorous
       imprisonment apart from fine of Rs.200/- each and in default
       to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days each.
              3. The case of the prosecution as projected before the
       trial Court was that on 12.03.2000, at around 9 p.m., the
 G     deceased Surender was conversing with his wife Choti
       (PW-1) and children Kumari Sarita (PW-3) and Vikram
       (PW-15) in their house. At that moment, the four accused
       suddenly barged into the house of the deceased declaring that
       they wanted to kill him, and that in order to save himself from
 H     them, the deceased ran to the back side of the house and hid
    STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. CHANDGI RAM & ORS.                   1125
      [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

 himself in the Khudi, from where the accused pulled him out, A
 dragged him to the house of Rajesh (A-3 herein) s/o Pitram
 and while dragging him to the house of A-3 they kept on
·assaulting him with the aid of iron rod, iron pipe and lathis.
 After killing the deceased, the accused brought back the body
 to the house of the deceased and left the same on a cot lying B
 in the verandah.
        4. According to Choti (PW-1), her husband was killed by
 the Respondents-accused due to prior animosity. It is not in
·dispute that Rajesh (A-3) and the deceased· are second
 cousins as their grand fathers are blood brothers. The C
 prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses (PWs-1 to
 15) and marked 29 documents (Exhibits P-1to29). On the
 defence side, 2 witnesses (DWs-1 and 2) were examined and
 24 documents (Exhibits D-1to24) were marked. Of the 15
 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PWs-1, 3, D
 8, 12 and 15 were eye witnesses. The High Court, having
 interfered with the conviction and sentence imposed by the
 trial Court, the State has come forward with this appeal.
      5. We lieard Mr.Ram Naresh Yadav, learned Standing
Counsel for the Appellant and Mr.Abhishek Gupta, learned E
Counsel for the Respondents-accused. Learned Counsel for
the Appellant took us through the evidence of the eye witnesses,
the evidence of Dr. Nathu Singh (PW-7), the post-mortem
doctor, Exhibit P-1, the written report filed by Choti (PW-1 ),
Exhibit P-10, the post-mortem certificate and Exhibit P-29, the F
FSL report and submitted that the prosecution proved the
offence alleged against the Respondents-accused with
substantive legal evidence and the interference by the High
Court was wholly unjustified.
                                                                 G
      6. As against the above submissions, Mr.Abhishek
Gupta, learned Counsel for the Respondents-accused
contended that the version of the eye witnesses was wholly
unnatural, contradictory with each other and \Yas improbable
in nature. The learned Counsel contended that there were H
1126       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A material discrepancies in the version of the eye witnesses
   account and, therefore, it was wholly unreliable in order to
   convict the Respondents-accused. He also contended that the
   delay in lodging the FIR was inexplicable which was fatal to
   the case of the prosecution as the real genesis of the
 B occurrence was suppressed. The learned Counsel further
   contended that considering the stand of the Respondents-
   accused in their 313 statement which was also supported by
   the defence witnesses and the other evidence placed before
   the Court, the judgment of the High Court does not call for
 c interference.
        7. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the
   Respondents-accused relied upon the decisions in Yeshwant
   and others The State of Maharashtra - (1972) 3 SCC 639,
   Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa - (1987) 3 SCC 480 and
 D Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab - 1989 Supp. (2) SCC
   21, Din Dayal v. Raj Kumar alias Raju and Others - (1999)
   SCC (Crl.) 892, Raghunath v. State of Haryana and
   another - (2003) 1 SCC 398, Mahtab Singh and Another
   v. State of Uttar Pradesh - (2009) 13 SCC 670, Lahu
 E Kamlakar Patil and Another v. State of Maharashtra -
   (2013) 6 sec 417.
          8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant
   and the Respondents-accused and having bestowed our
 F serious consideration to the judgments of the High Court and
   the trial Court and the evidence placed before us, we are of
   the view that the reasoning of the High Court in interfering with
   the conviction imposed on the Respondents-accused by the
   trial Court lacks in very many aspects when considered based
   on the abundant evidence laid before the trial Court at the
 G
   instance of the prosecution.
         9. When we peruse the evidence of PWs-1, 3, 8, 12 and
   15, who were all eye witnesses, though learned Counsel for
   the Respondents-accused attempted to point out certain
 H variations in the eye witnesses account, we find that as far as
    STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. CHANDGI RAM & ORS.                         1127
      [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KAUFULLA, J.]

the overall genesis of the occurrence was concerned, the A
evidence of all the above eye witnesses was cogent and there
was not much of discrepancy or contradiction in their versions.
The evidence of Choti (PW-1 ), as regards the narration of the
occurrence, was clear and categoric when she referred to the
approximate time at which the occurrence took place when B
her husband was dragged by the Respondents-accused from
the Khudi to the house of A-3 and in that process he was
severely beaten with iron rod, iron pipe and lathis by each one
of the accused.
       10. The said version of Choti (PW-1) was fully                C
corroborated by PWs-3 and 15 who are none other than the
children of the deceased and Choti (PW-1 ). In fact, at the time
of occurrence Kumari Sarita (PW-3) was 7% years old and
Vikram (PW-15) was 1%year younger than Kumari Sarita (PW-
3). Further, in the orientation of the witnesses·, the trial Court   D
has found that they were fully conscious of what they were to
state before the Court and their answers to the questions did
disclose that they were able to understand the whole purpose
of giving their evidence in Court and as to on what matter they
were supposed to give their evidence. Even while narrating           E
the incident, both the above witnesses were able to fully support
the version of Choti (PW-1) as regards the involvement of each
one of the accused, the weapons used by them in that process
and the ultimate death of the deceased after such severe
beating with the weapons used.                                       F
       11. The learned Counsel for the Respondents-accused,
while making reference to the version of Kumari Sarita (PW-
3) in the cross-examination that on the date of occurrence at
about 9-9.30 p.m. they went to sleep and submitted that the
evidence of the said eye witness cannot be relied upon. We G
see no good reason to acceptthe said submission inasmuch
as in our considered opinion, considering the extent of
statement made by the said witness as regards the incident in
a graphic manner, the said stray statement about their going H
1128       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A to sleep by 9-9.30 p.m. was an insignificant one and on that
   basis it will be wholly inappropriate to disbelieve the version
   of Kumari Sarita (PW-3), whose version in all other respects
   was natural and fully supported the eye witness account of Choti
   (PW-1).
 B       12. Similarly, we find absolutely no discrepancy in the
   version of Vikram (PW-15), who was even younger than
   Kumari Sarita (PW-3) in age at the time of the occurrence but
   yet his version before the Court as recorded by the trial Court
   disclosed that he was only speaking the truth and he was able
 C to give the required details as regards the manner in which
   the occurrence took place, the involvement of the Respondents-
   accused and the weapons which U1ey used in that process
   and the ultimate killing of his father at the instance of the
   Respondents-accused.
 D
         13. In this context, it is relevant to rely on a decision of
   this Court reported in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh
   and another- (2011) 4 sec 786 wherein it laid down as to
   how the evidence of a child witness should be assessed.
 E Paragraphs 7, 11and14 which are r€1evantfor our purpose,
   are as under:                         ·              ·
           '7. In Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan this Court
           examined the provisions of Section 5 of the Oaths Act,
           1873 and Section 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and
 F         held that (AIR p. 55, para 7) every witness is competent
           to depose unless the court considers that he is prevented
           from understanding the question put to him, or from giving
           rational answers by reason of tender age, extreme old
           age, disease whether of body or mind or any other cause
 G         of the same kind. There is always competency in fact
           unless the court considers otherwise. The Court further
         . held as under: (AIR p. 56, para 11)
             "11 . ... it is desirable that Judges and Magistrates
             should always record their opinion that the child
 H           understands the duty of speaking the truth and state
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. CHANDGI RAM & ORS.                  1129
  [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

   why they think that, otherwise the credibility of the A
   witness may be seriously affected, so much so, that in
   some cases it may be necessary to reject the evidence
   altogether. But whether the Magistrate or Judge really
   was of that opinion can, I think, be gathered from the
   circumstances when there is no formal certificate."    B
 11. The evidence of a child must reveal that he was able
 to discern between right and wrong and the court may
 find out from the cross-examination whether the defence
 lawyer could bring anything to indicate that the child could
 not differentiate between right and wrong. The court may C
 ascertain his suitability as a witness by putting questions
 to him .and even if no such questions had been put, it
 may be gathered from his evidence as to whether he
 fully understood the implications of what he was saying
 and whether he stood discredited in facing a stiff cross- D
 examination. A child witness must be able to understand
 the sanctity of giving evidence on oath and the import of
 the questions that were being put to him. (Vide Himmat
 Sukhadeo Wahurwagh v. State of Maharashtra.)
 14. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be · E
 summarised to the effect that the deposition of a child
 witness may require corroboration, but in case his
 deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there
 is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court F
 may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child
 witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater
 circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring.
 Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a
 child has been tutored, the court can reject his statement G
 partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether child
 has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents
 of his deposition."
                                      (Emphasis added)
                                                           H
    1130         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.

'
     A          14. To the same effect is the decision reported in
           Shivasharanappa and others v. State of Karnataka (2013)
           5 SCC 705. Paragraph 17 can be referred to as under:
                "17. Thus. it is well settled in law that the court can rely
                upon the testimony of a child witness and it can form the
     B          basis of conviction ifthe same is credible. truthful and is
                corroborated by other evidence brought on record.
                Needless to say, the corroboration is not a must to record
                a conviction, but as a rule of prudence, the court thinks it
                desirable to see the corroboration from other reliable
     c          evidence placed on record. The principles that apply for
                placing reliance on the solitary statement of the witness,
                namely, that the statement is true and correct and is of
                quality and cannot be discarded solely on the ground of
                lack of corroboration, apply to a child witness who is
     D          competent and whose version is reliable."
                                                       (emphasis added)
                  15. The learned Counsel for the Respondents-accused
           was repeatedly contending that the yersion of the above
     E     witnesses was wholly unnatural by pointing out that when the
           head of the family was being attacked mercilessly by the four
           accused persons, the witnesses were not taking any effort to
           seek the help of their neighbours in the village, where all the
           houses were closely situated. Here again, we are not able to
    · F    accept or appreciate the said contention for more than one
           reason. In the first place, Choti (PW-1) is the wife of the
           deceased who at that point of time was more concerned in
           rescuing her husband from the attack of the Respondents-
           accused who were four in number and who were fully armed
     G     with iron rod, iron pipe and lathis. Therefore, when her husband
           was ~eing beaten mercilessly by four different persons, as
           rightly deposed by her, she could only make a hue and cry
           whilH taking every possible effort to rescue him from the
           merciless onslaught of the assailants. If at all anything can be
     H     said based on such cries of Choti (PW-1), those who were
     STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. CHANDGI RAM & ORS.                        1131
       [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFUL~, J.]

living nearby could have come for her rescue in saving her A
husband. If no one came and were not prepared to extend a
helping hand, then Choti (PW-1) c~mnot be blar:ned for that
reason. On seeing the plight of Choti (PW-1), Bhateri (PW-8)
her niece, who happened to come at the place of occurrence
appeared to have rushed back to inform her uncle, namely, B
Subhash (PW-12) who is the elder brother of the deceased
and who tried to intervene and save the deceased from the
ruthless attack of the Respondents-accused.
        16. According to Choti (PW-1) and Subhash (PW-12),
 the Respondents-accused were so keen in eliminating the             C
  deceased that they were stated to have warded off any attempt
  made by Choti (PW-1) and Subhash (PW-12) in saving the
  deceased from the dreadful attack by them: Therefore, we do
·not find any conduct which is not normal or unnatural from what
  was stated by Choti (PW-1) or Subhash (PW-12). As far as            D
  Kumari Sarita (PW-3) and_ Vikram (PW-15) are concerned,
  they are children of the deceased and when they witnessed
. the gruesome attack of the Respondents-accused on their
  father, they could have made noise and being children of a
  very tender age, it cannot be stated as to in what manner they      E
  were expected to behave at that point of time. Butpn that score,
  it cannot be held that the whole of their evidence should be
  eschewed from consideration. While witnessing such an
  inhuman behaviour of the assailants, the young children might
  have become paralysed out of shock and fear. Therefore, the         F
  contention made on behalf of the Respondents-accused that
  the behaviour of the eye witnesses was unnatural, does not
  stand to any reason and, therefore, the said contention
  deserves to be rejected,
        17. It was contended that all the witnesses were family G
 members of the deceased and being interested witnesses,
 their version cannot be relied upon in toto. When we consider
 the same, we fail to understand as to why the evidence of the
 witnesses should be discarded solely on the ground that the
                                                                      H
1132        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A said witnesses are related to the deceased. It is well settled
   that the credibility of a witness and his/her version should be
   tested based on his/her te~timony vis-a-vis the occurrence with
   reference to which the testimonies are deposed before the
   Court. As the evidence is tendered invariably before the Court,
 B the Court will be in the position to assess the truthfulness or
   othe1wise of the witness while deposing about the evidence
   and the persons on whom any such evidence is tendered. As
   every witness is bound to face the cross-examination by the
   defence side, the falsity, if any, deposed by the witness can be
 c easily exposed in that process. The trial Court will be able to
   assess the quality of witnesses irrespective of the fact whether
   the witness is related or not.. Pithily stated, if the version of the
   witness is credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible and the
   veracity of the statement does not give scope to any doubt,
 D there is no reason to reject the testimony of the said witness,
   simply because the witness is related to the deceased or any
   of the parties. In this context, reference can be made to the
   decision of this Court reported in Mano Dutt and another v.
   State of Uttar Pradesh - (2012) 4 SCC 79. Paragraph 24
 E is relevant which reads as under:
            "24. Another contention raised on behalf of the appellant-
           accused is that only family members of the deceased
           were examined as witnesses and they being interested
           witnesses cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the
 F         prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses
           and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its
           case beyond reasonable doubt. This argument is again
           without much substance. Firstly, there is no bar in law in
           examining family members, or any other person, as
 G         witnesses. More often than not. in such cases involving
           family members of both sides, it is a member of the
           family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. Those
           alone are the people who take the risk of sustaining
           injuries by jumping into such a quarrel and trying to defuse
 H         the crisis. Besides, when the statement of witnesses, who
    STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. CHANDGI RAM & ORS.                    1133
      [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

     are relatives. or are parties known to the affected party. A
     is credible. reliable. trustworthy, admissible in
     accordance with the law and corroborated by other
     witnesses or documentary evidence of the prosecution.
     there would hardly be any reason for the Court to reject
     such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was B
     a family member or an interested witness or a person
     known to the affected party."
                                          (emphasis added)
     18. Reliance can also be placed upon Dinesh Kumar          c
v. State of Rajasthan - (2008) 8 SCC 270, wherein in
paragraph 12, the law has been succinctly laid down as under:
     "12 .. In law, testimony of an injured witness is given
     importance. When the eyewitnesses are stated to be
     interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, D
     it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude
     that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent
     persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to
     be weighed pragmatically. The court would be required
     to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those E
     witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the
     accused. Brn if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their
     evidence, the version given qy the witnesses appears to
     be clear, cogent and credible:, there is no reason to
     discard the same. Conviction can be made on the basis F
     of such evidence."·
                                        (Underlining is ours)
       19. It was then contended on behalf of the Respondents-
accused that there was inexplicable delay in lodging of the G
FIR. It was pointed out that the occurrence took place at 9 p.m.
while the FIR was lodged only at 10.15 a.m. on the next day.
During the whole night the relatives of the deceased were
informed about the killing of the deceased by Choti (PW-1)
and some of whom also arrived at the place of occurrence. H
1134         .SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A When the said contention is considered, as noted by us earlier,
   the occurrence took place at around 9-9.30 p.m. and even
   according to the eye witnesses, the attack on the deceased
   went on for about an hour. Therefore, by the time the whole
   incident was over, namely, the deceased was dragged to the
 B house of Rajesh (A-3) beaten up there and brought back dead
   and thrown on the cot in the verandah of the house of the
   deceas~d, it would have crossed 10 p.m. Choti (PW-1 ), being
   the wife of the deceased who is a rustic village woman and
   shocked while witnessing the incident, it cannot be said that
 c she should have made every effort to lodge the complaint with
   the police immediately afterthe killing of her husband. Being
   a village lady with two minor children, who were also pathetically
   witnessing the gruesome killing of their father, she would have
   been only crying helplessly seeking the support of her close
 o relatives.
             20. If at all anyone could have done anything, Subhash
       (PW-12) who is the brother of the deceased, could have been
       expected to take some steps to inform the police. It must be
       remembered that the occurrence had taken place in a remote
 E     place and the police station is more than a kUometre away
       from the place of occurrence. In the night hours, as villagers,
       having found that the person was killed and was lying dead,
       they must have been in a bewilderment and, therefore, the
       complaint was lodged only on the next day morning and that to
 F     after the police arrived at 10 a.m. No definite reason can be
       attributed for not lodging the complaint expeditiously, but as
       stated by us earlier, it was due to the helplessness of the poor
       lady who lost her husband in the late night. In this context, it will
       be worthwhile to keep in mind the version of Jag ram (PW-2)
 G     brother of Choti (PW-1) who in his testimony has confirmed
       that when he went to the house of Lalchand to report the
       incident to Bagor Police Station, he briefly informed the SHO
       about the incident. It was also informed by him that after making
       the telephone call, the.SHO reached the spot within half an
 H     hour arid gotthe first information written under Exhibit P-1,
    STATE OF RAJASTHAN v~CHANDGI RAM & ORS.                       1135
      [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

which was handed over to the SHO who thereafter, prepared         A
Exhibit P-2 map when Jag ram (PW-2) who was also present,
affixed the signatures on Exhibit P-2. But on that score, it
cannot be held that there would have been a total variation in
the genesis of the case, considering the eye witnesses account
of the witnesses whose version we have found to be fl.illy        B
credible and corroborative in every respect. Therefore, merely
because there was some delay in the lodging of the FIR, which
cannot be wholly attributed to the aggrieved party Choti (PW-
 1), on that score, there is no scope to hold that the
Respondents-accused are to be given a clean chit when there        C
was strong evidence both oral and documentary and material
objects placed before the trial Court confirming their
 involvement in the occurrence. Therefore, the said submission
 of the alleged delay in lodging of the FIR also does not merit
 acceptance.                                                       D
      ·21. As far as the reliance placed upon the defence version
is concerned, the same was rightly rejected by the trial Court
for well founded reasons. Apart from the version of the eye
witnesses, the admissible part of the evidence of Ranjit Singh
(PW-13), the Investigating Officer, insofar as it related to the ·E
recoveries made with the aid of Panch witnesses, established
the weapons used by the Respondents-accused in the process
of the killing of the deceased. Exhibit P-29 was marked through
PW-13, which is the FSL report. The contents of the FSL
Report (Exhibit P-29), have been dealt with by the trial Court F
which is stated as under:
      "The report of Exhibit P-29 has been issued by the FSL
      Office on 02.08.2001 which confirms the traces of human
      blood on the blood-soaked soil, blood-stained cotton, G
      the shirt of deceased Surender, his pant and baniyan,
      the iron pipe recovered from accused Suresh, iron rod
      recovered from accused Rajesh. laathi recovered from
      Chandagi and Anvi.
                                                                   H
1136        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A         :rraces of "A" group blood have been found on the piece
           .of cotton on which human blood sample was recovered
           from the cotwhere the dead body of Su render was lying
           and also on the shirt, pant and baniyan of Surender. No
           suspicion can be raised about the blood present on the
 B         clothes worn by the deceased anq the blood recovered
           below the cot, that it was the blood of deceased Su render.
           The gro'up of blood present on other articles could not
           be ascertained for the reason that quantity of blood was
           quite low, but keeping in view the evidences available
 c         on record and finding the traces of human blood. it can
           be said beyond doubt that it was also the blood of
           deceased Surender. The report of Exhibit P-29 in itself
           is a clinching evidence to hold accused guilty to the
           offence. There remains no doubt in holding conviction
 o         of the accused for the offence of murder of Su render by
           the accused." ·
                                               (Underlining is ours)
        . 22. The above discussion made by the trial Court amply
 E . demonstrates that in the process of investigation, the
     Investigating Officer was able to recover the blood stained
     clothes, soil and other materials and the FSL report (Exhibit
     P-29) confirmed traces of human blood. Simply because the
   . blood stained apparels of Choti (PW-1) was not exhibited, it
 F cannot be held that on that score.the material part of the
     evidence of eye witnesses should be eschewed from
     consideration. Apart from the involvement of the accused in
     th13 crime as spoken to by the eye witnesses, tb.e FSL report
     (Exhibit P-?9) co.nfirmed the brutal killing of the deceased which
 G was the result of the attack on his body with various weapons.
     The post-mortem Doctor Nathu Singh (PW-7), who confirmed
     the injuries found on the body of the deceased as per the post-
     mortem report (Exhibit P-10), disclosed that there were as
     many as· 14 injuries of which the head injury was fatal.. The
 H said version of the doctor also confirmed the injuries sustained
                                                                      .
    STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. CHANDGI RAM & ORS.                   1137
      [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

by the deceased on his head, as well as, other vital parts of A
his body. Therefore, a cumulative consideration of the above
evidence amply established the crime in which the
Respondents-accused were involved, resulted in the killing of
the deceased.
      23. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the 8
Respondents-accused on the decision reported in Surinder
Singh (supra). In this case the prosecution witness informed
neither his relatives nor the police authorities or officials after
he witnessed the act of murder committed by the Appellant, in
a timely manner. In fact, PW-2 went back to his house and C
dozed off and it was only after sometime did he go and inform
PW-3 who advised him to go to the police. We have to state,
at this juncture, that the facts and circumstances of this case
are distinguishable fromthe present appeal and hence, reliance
on this judgment will be futile as in the case on hand, although D
the police were not informed immediately, the relatives of the
deceased were informed instantly and it was only natural that
a village woman having two minor children could not go and
inform the police about the incident at late hours in the night,
especially when the police station was more than one and half E
kilometres away. Therefore, the said decision is of no
assistance to the Respondents-accused.
      24. Reliance was also placed on Lahu Kamlakar Patil
(supra), wherein the ground urged before this Court was that F
the sole witness in the case ran away from the spot of
occurrence and did not inform the police about the incident,
but on the contrary hid himself until early morning of the next
day, and also that he did,not come to the spot where the police
arrived out of fear for three hours. He had, in fact, contrary to G
normal human behaviour, gone to his house in Pune and did
not inform his family members. He chose to inform the police
about the entire incident after three days, when his wife
informed him that the police had come to_ his house, looking
for him. Reliance was placed on the above-judgment to state H
1138        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A that the conduct of the witness in the present appeal seems to
   be unnatural i.e., by approaching the police and filing the FIR
   in a belated manner. We will have to state that in the above
   case, the sole witness approached the police out of fear and, ·
   in fact, did not even lodge the FIR with the police in the first
 B instance. Therefore, this fact is clearly distinguishable from the
   present appeal, wherein, Choti (PW-1) had genuine reason to
   lodge the FIR on the morning of next day. Hence, reliance on
   the above case is also not helpful to the Respondent.
           25 .. The learned Counsel for the Respondents-accused,
 C placed reliance on Din Dayal (supra) wherein this Court held
    that the conduct of the witnesses was unnatural and
    unreasonable in not informing the police about the incident as
    they had quietly gone back to their home after the said
    occurrence. They had also not disclosed the name of the
 D accused to the-police constable who was on duty, even though
    they disclosed other facts regarding the incidents and hence
    on this ground, the Court had reasons for.doubting the
    truthfulness of the evidence of the witnesses. In the present
    appeal, there were cogent reasons as has been clearly.
 E explained above for the lodging of the FIR on the next morning
    af!d.the conduct of the witnesseswere not in any way similar
    to the above stated case and, therefore, the same cannot be
    relied upon.tience, on this ground, this case is also not helpful
  • to the Respondents-accused.
 F
          26. As far as reliance on Mahtab Singh (supra) was
   concerned!. it will have to be noted that in the said case, this
   Court found that in spite of the fact that the police station was a
   fl!rlong away, the complainant did not choose to go to police
 G station straightway, but instead he went to a person called
   Ch.a ran Singh for preparing a report and only thereafter, went
   to police·.statfon whichTesulted·irJ a delay of 45 minutes. It was
   in these peculiar facts of the case, it was held that delay in
   lodging the FIR, created doubt. In the ca~e on hand, we have
   noted that the occurrence took place in the late night in a remote
l-t
    STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. CHANDGI RAM & ORS.                      1139
      [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

village where the sufferers of the incident were the widow and A
her two minor children, apart from the fact that police station
was one and a half kilometres away. Therefore, we are not
inclined to rely on the said decision to the case on hand.
       27. Reliance to paragraph 21 of Yeshwant (supra) was
placed by the counsel for the Respondents-accused to submit       8
that there was no conclusive evidence to prove that the blood
stains on the body .were that of the deceased and whether
they were of human origin and, therefore, the connection of
the evidence with the occurrence under consideration was not
shown by anything on record. We will have to state here that      C
the FSL report (Exhibit- P-29) has specifically mentioned that
the blood stains found on the articles were of human origin,
while also determining the blood group to be as 'A positive'.
Also according to the statement of the Investigating Officer
Ranjit Singh (PW-13), during the course of investigation all      D
the weapons described by the eyewitnesses, which had blood
stains on them, were recovered from the possession of the
Respondents-accused. It can also be inferred from the post-
mortem report (Exhibit P-10) of Dr. Nathu Singh (PW-7), the
medical officer that the various injuries caused on the           E
deceased were from the weapons recovered at the instan9e
of the accused. Therefore, these findings are strong factors in
establishing the culpability of the Respondents-accused in
committing the murder. For the very sarrie reasons, reliance
placed on paragraphs 7 and 8 of the decision Raghunath            F
(supra) and on paragraph 12 in Kansa Behera (supra) is
also rejected.
       28. When we examine tl:le reasoning of the Division
Bench in concluding that the offence was not made out, it was
mainly on the ground that there was delay in the lodging of the G
FIR and the conduct of the witnesses as spoken to by them
did not inspire confidence. In our considered view, when.the
High Court had interfered with the conviction imposed by the
trial Court, it ought to have examined the evidence meticulously H
1140          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A and expressed cogent and convincing reasons as to why the
   detailed consideration of the evidence did not inspire
   confidence in order to interfere with the conclusion of the trial
   Court. In our considered view, the High Court had miserably
   failed to carry out the said exercise and without assigning
 8 reasorn:., much less convincing reasons, has chosen to interfere
   with the conviction imposed by the trial Court in a light hearted
   manner.
         2!3. Having regard to our above conclusion, we find that
   none of the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the
 C Respondents-accused can be applied to the case, inasmuch
   as we have found that the eye witnesses account of the
   concerned witnesses were all convincing and were
   corroborative in every minute aspect of the occurrence. We
   have also found that their version was natural and there was
 D nothing to suspect their version in narrating the occurrence.
   We have also found that the defence version was rightly
   rejected by the trial Court as the same was wholly unreliable.
   Apart from eye witnesses account, we have also found the
   recoveries of the weapons, the medical evidence and the FSL
 E reports fully supporting the case of the prosecution.
             30. Having regard to our above conclusions, the judgment
    of the trial Court ought not to have been interfered by the High
    Court. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the
. F judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the
    trial Court along with the conviction and sentence imposed.
    The Respondents-accused shall, therefore, surrender forthwith
    and undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence imposed
    on them.
 G
       Nidhi Jain                                       Appeal allowed.