CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) CONVICTED for offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code (`ipc for short) and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and further directed to undergo an imprisonment of rigorous imprisonment for three months by the Sessions Judge, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 9. 1. 86 before this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 16. 6. 82, one Umrao Singh, (PW. 1), submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) to the SHO, Police Station, Bhusawar wherein he claimed that "on that very day in the evening around 8 O' clock when he returned from Bayana, he was told that Munshi S/o Prasadi and Munna S/o Babulal had picked up his mother, Smt. Rammo, and thrown her into a well. At that time his younger brother was not around. His younger brother ran to the village and told the villagers that Munshi and Munna have thrown his mother into the well. Upon his calling the villagers, Charan, Bhagi, Girdhari and others reached the well and pulled his mother out. Prabhu went to the village Nithar and called the `vaid' (a medical doctor in the Indian system of medicine) who administered some medicine to his mother. Subsequently, the villagers took his mother to the hospital at Bhusawar and admitted her there. " On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, FIR No. 74/82 was chalked out for offence under Section 307 IPC. Subsequently, the police submitted the challan against the accused appellants. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses and submitted five documents. THE defence also examined four witnesses and submitted few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. P. K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, that the incident is said to have occurred on 15. 6. 82 at around 6. 45 p. m. , yet the written report was not submitted till 16. 6. 82 around 1. 15 p. m. Thus, there is an inordinate delay of 17 hours. The delay has not been explained by the prosecution. Secondly, though the FIR was lodged after Smt. Rammo had regained consciousness and the said FIR was lodged at her instance, material facts are conspicuously missing in the FIR. Therefore, Smt. Rammo had exaggerated in her testimony. Hence, she is an unreliable witness. Thirdly, the prosecution has not produced independent witnesses despite the fact that the villagers had gathered at the well where allegedly Smt. Rammo was thrown by the appellants. Fourthly, that even material witnesses, such as Smt. Rammo's husband, Kamal Singh, has not been produced in the witness-box. Thus, the prosecution has withheld material witnesses. Fifthly, the interested witnesses such as, Rewati (PW. 5), who happens to be the son of Smt. Rammo, should not be believed. The prosecution has produced only two independent witnesses, namely, Prabhu (PW. 2) and Charan (PW. 3 ). Prabhu (PW. 2) happens to be a chance witness and Charan (PW. 3) clearly admits in his cross-examination that he did not see the appellants throwing Smt. Rammo into the well. Hence, Charan (PW. 3) is not an eye-witness. Thus, these two witnesses do not strengthen the prosecution case. Sixthly, Smt. Rammo had suffered only three injuries, two of them are bruises and one is merely a scratch. In case Smt. Rammo had fallen into the well or was thrown into the well, she would have sustained grievous injuries rather than simple ones. Therefore, the medical evidence contradicts the testimony of the witnesses. Seventhly, considering the nature of injuries, the case does not fall within the scope of Section 307 IPC. For, Smt. Rammo has suffered only three simple injuries that too on her hips. These injuries are insufficient to cause the death of Smt. Rammo in the ordinary cause of nature. Lastly, the learned trial Court has ignored the evidence of the defence witness. It has failed to appreciate the fact that the defence has probablised its case. According to the defence, a false and frivolous case was hoisted on the appellants because Smt. Rammo's husband had sold his land to the appellants and was paid Rs. 3,300/-, an amount the complainant did not wish to return back to the appellants. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Arun Sharma, has contended that delay in lodging of an FIR is not always fatal to the prosecution. In case the prosecution explains the reason for the delay, then the prosecution case is saved. Secondly, the testimony of interested witnesses cannot be thrown out only because they are related to the victim. Thirdly, the testimony of Smt. Rammo, the victim, has not been shaken in the cross-examination. Similarly, the testimony of Rewati (PW. 5) who is an eye-witness, has not been shaken in the cross-examination. Therefore, both these witnesses are of sterling worth. Hence, the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants on the basis of testimonies of these two witnesses. Fourthly, their testimony is corroborated by the medical evidence. Moreover, it is not necessary that merely because a person falls into the well or is thrown into the well, a certain type of injuries have to be sustained by the person. In fact, Dr. Virendra Singh (PW. 6) had clearly stated in his testimony that the injuries sustained by Smt. Rammo could be sustained by a person who falls into a well and the body hits against the wall of the well. Therefore, the medical evidence clearly corroborates the testimony of the witnesses. Fifthly, the nature of injury is not the determinative factor for deciding the commission of offence under Section 307 IPC. Lastly, the learned trial Court is justified in rejecting the evidence of the defence. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties, have perused the impugned judgment and have examined the record. It is not in disputed that Smt. Rammo was allegedly thrown into the well on 15. 6. 82 around 6. 45 p. m. It is equally not in dispute that Umrao (PW. 1) lodged his report at P. S. Bhusawar on 16. 6. 82 around 1. 15 p. m. Thus, clearly there is a delay of almost 17 hours between the occurrence and the lodging of the FIR. However, Umrao Singh (PW. 1) tells us that when he came in the evening from Bayana, he was told by the villagers that the appellants had thrown his mother into the well. When he went to his house, he found that his mother was being treated by the `vaid'. The `vaid' also told him that ``it is as much as he could do for his mother, but in the morning they should take her to the hospital. " In the morning, she was taken to the Bhusawar Hospital. The injury report was drawn up at 11. 00 a. m. on 16. 6. 82 and the FIR was lodged at 1. 15 p. m. on 16. 6. 82. Thus, clearly the family was busy looking after the health and welfare of the mother. Therefore, the delay of 17 hours has been explained by the prosecution. Hence, the said delay is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is without force.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellants, the FIR was lodged at the instance of Smt. Rammo, who had regained consciousness at the hospital. ACCORDING to the learned counsel Smt. Rammo had narrated the entire instance to her son Umrao (PW. 1) including the fact that her hand and feet were tied and her mouth was gagged by the appellants before she was thrown into the well. However, this fact is conspicuously missing from the FIR. Thus, omission of a material fact has been suppressed according to the learned counsel for the appellants. However, this contention is also untenable. For, Umrao Singh (PW. 1), in his cross-examination, merely states that "when his mother regained conscious, she merely told him that the appellants had thrown her into the well. " ACCORDING to him, the mother did not tell him any of the great details about the occurrence. Therefore, just because the FIR does not mention the fact that Rammo's hand and feet were tied and her mouth was gagged and she was thrown into the well, it would not create a doubt about the veracity of Smt. Rammo's testimony. Furthermore, neither the trial court, nor this Court can overlook the principle that an FIR is not meant to be encyclopedic in its scope. The purpose of FIR is to inform the police or the investigating agency about the occurrence of a cognizable offence. Therefore, the function of a FIR is merely to initiate the criminal machinery. It is neither the requirement of law, nor of prudence that FIR must contain minute details about the incident. What is important is that FIR must contain the essential features, the kernel of the prosecution story. Thus, merely because the victim being bound and gagged is not mentioned in the FIR, it would not dilute the importance of the FIR, or damage the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is meritless. In the present case the star witness, Smt. Rammo (PW. 4) narrates the entire incident in her testimony. In her examination-in-chief, she says that "three years ago in the evening she had gone to her field. Both the appellants had confronted her at the field and had demanded to know from her as to why she was opposing the Registry of the sale deed whereby her husband was selling her field to them. Both the persons tied her hands and her feet and gagged her. Therefore, she was unable to scream when she was being dragged to the well. While she was being dragged, the appellants told her that today, they will finish her off. ' Subsequently, they threw her into the well. Later on, she regained her consciousness at the Bhusawar Hospital. Her injuries were examined. She further tells us that a day before the incident, the appellants had asked her husband for Registry of the sale-deed, whereupon she alongwith her son Rewati and Umrao, and Charan and Kishan Lal Godara went to the Tehsil Office and prevented the sale-deed from being registered. According to her, it is because of this prevention that the appellants had thrown her into the well. " In her cross-examination, she further tells the Court that her son, Rewati, was looking after the cows in the fields. Since she was gaged, she could not scream. She denies some of the suggestions made by the defence, such as that she had jumped into the well of her own free will as she was tired of the drinking habits of her husband, or because of the constant fight with her husband. She has further denied the suggestion that she was hoisting a false case upon the appellants because she and her husband did not wish to return the money that they had received after selling their land. There is nothing to show in her cross- examination that her testimony has been demolished. Thus, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of her testimony. ;