Basharat and Others (in Jail) vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Sahai, J.—Thirteen people namely Basharat, Nurul Haq, Rahman Ali Khan, Syed Khan, Harun alias Nanhu, Jalil, Rozzan alias Rajjan, Jamil, Shakeel, Iliyas, Nazir, Saghir and Mashooq were tried by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1979 for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 302/149, I.P.C. The learned Judge vide judgment and order dated 19.12.1989 acquitted Jamil, Shakeel, Iliyas, Nazir, Saghir and Mashooq for the said offences but convicted and sentenced Basharat, Nurul Haq, Rahman Ali Khan, Syed Khan, Harun alias Nanhu, Jalil and Rozzan alias Rajjan in the manner stated hereinafter:

(i) u/s 147, I.P.C. to 1-1/2 years R.I. ; and

(ii) u/s 302/149, I.P.C. to imprisonment for life.

Aggrieved by their convictions and sentences the said persons preferred the present appeal.

It is significant to point out that the State of U.P. has not impugned the acquittal of the acquitted accused by preferring an appeal u/s 378(1), Cr. P.C.

Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under:

The informant Manzoor alias Manzoor Ali P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased Mohammad Islam. At the time of the incident, the informant, the deceased, Jai Ram P.W. 2, the Appellants and the acquitted accused were living in village Rasoolpur within the limits of police station, Haiderganj, district Faizabad. There was enmity between the informant and the deceased Mohammad Islam Khan on one side and the Appellants and the acquitted accused, all of whom are inter-related, on the other. The informant had got a sale deed executed in favour of his son Mohd. Islam in respect of some land of Ahsanullah tailor situated in village Rasoolpur. Inside the said land, was a plumb tree. A day before the incident, i.e., on 12.11.1978 at 2 p.m., Mohd. Islam had cut a branch of the said tree. The same night, Appellants Noorul Haq, Rozan, Sayed Khan, one Shakeel and acquitted accused Nasir came to the door of the informant and protested to Mohd. Islam for cutting the branch of plumb tree. An exchange of abuses also took place between them and the said persons, after threatening Mohd. Islam that they would see him next morning, went away.

Next day, i.e., on 13.11.1978 at about 8 a.m., Mohd. Islam along with buffaloes proceeded to grazing ground situated to the north of the village. At the said time, informant was watering his field situated to the west of the field of Jai Ram P.W. 2. Jai Ram at that time was also in his field, as also Heeru and Beechu ; their fields being located by the side of the informant''s field.

When Mohd. Islam along with buffaloes reached near the field of Haroon alias Nanhoo, informant and others saw that seven Appellants Basharat, Nurul Haq, Rahman Ali Khan, Syed Khan, Harun alias Nanhu, Jalil and Rozzan alias Rajjan along with six acquitted accused, namely, Jamil, Shakeel, Iliyas, Nazir, Saghir and Mashooq, all armed with lathis, were chasing Mohd. Islam and saying "Maar Dalo-Maar Dalo" (kill him kill him). When Mohd. Islam reached the field of Pheru Khan situated at a distance of 150 yards, the Appellants and the acquitted accused surrounded him in the said field and the seven Appellants, namely, Basharat, Nurul Haq, Rahman Ali Khan, Syed Khan, Harun alias Nanhu, Jalil and Rozzan alias Rajjan, assaulted him with lathis on the instigation of six acquitted accused, namely, Jameel, Shakeel, Iliyas, Nazeer, Saghir and Mashooq. The instigation was to the effect that "mar dalo-mar dalo". Seeing the incident, the informant along with Jai Ram, Bechu Khan and Pheru also reached the place of incident. Then the Appellants and the acquitted accused leaving Mohd. Islam ran away. As a consequence of the assault launched by the Appellants on Mohd. Islam, the latter fell down unconscious in Pheru''s field. Blood was oozing out from his injuries. The informant arranged for a cot and on the same first brought Mohd. Islam to his house and then after putting a bedding on the cot, brought him to Chaukebazar police outpost, where a constable arranged for a taxi and asked him to take Mohd. Islam to the Government Hospital at Bikapur. Consequently, in the said taxi the informant took Mohd. Islam to Bikapur Hospital, but since his condition was precarious, the doctor after giving some aid to him, advised that he be taken to District Hospital, Faizabad.

The evidence of Dr. M. B. Mal (P.W. 3) shows that on 13.11.1978, he was posted as Medical Officer, District Hospital, Faizabad and on the said date at 11.30 a.m., he medically examined Mohd. Islam and found on his person the following injuries:

(i) Lacerated wound 4 cm. x .5 cm. x bone deep, 11 cm. above right ear.

(ii) Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 5 cm. x bone deep, 4 cm. above injury No. 1.

(iii) Lacerated wound 10 cm. x .5 cm. x bone deep 2 cm. behind injury No. 2.

(iv) Lacerated wound 5 cm. x .5 cm. x bone deep, 9 cm. above left ear.

(v) Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 0.5 cm. x bone deep, 2 cm. behind injury No. 4.

(vi) Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 0.5 cm., 1 cm. below Injury No. 5.

(vii) Bleeding from right ear.

(viii) Traumatic swelling right hand 6 cm. x 4 cm.

(ix) Fracture of left forearm swelling, swelling 5 cm. x 5 cm. below left elbow joint.

In the opinion of Dr. M. B. Mal, condition of Mohd. Islam was very critical and he was unconscious.

The evidence of Dr. M. B. Mal shows that Mohd. Islam succumbed to his injuries same day (i.e., 13.11.1978) at 12.45 p.m., inside District Hospital, Faizabad.

The evidence of informant shows that after his son Mohd. Islam had succumbed to his injuries, he dictated the F.I.R. of the incident to his son Ayub and lodged the same at police station, Kotwali, district Faizabad.

The evidence of S.I. Ravindra Kumar Singh (P.W. 5) shows that on 13.11.1978 at 3.30 p.m. he performed the inquest on the corpse of Mohd. Islam in District Hospital, Faizabad and took on the same the signatures and thumb impressions of witnesses of the inquest. He then prepared photo lash and challan lash and sent corpse for autopsy.

The evidence of Ram Charit Pandey (P.W. 4) shows that on 13.11.1978 he was posted as Constable Clerk at police station, Kotwali, district Faizabad and on the said date at 6.30 p.m., informant Manzoor Ali (P.W. 1) lodged his written F.I.R. (exhibit Ka-1), on the basis of which he registered a case vide G.D. entry (exhibit Ka-6). It is significant to mention that distance between the place of the incident and the police station, Kotwali, district Faizabad is 30 kms.

The evidence of Dr. M. B. Mal shows that on 14.11.1978 at 1.00 p.m. he conducted the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased and found on it the following ante-mortem injuries:

(i) Stitched wound 5 cm. x bone deep in the left side of the head, 9 cm. above left ear.

(ii) Stitched wound 5 cm. x bone deep left side of the head 11 cm. above and behind left ear.

(iii) Stitched wound 4 cm. x bone deep left side of the head 12 cm. above and behind left ear.

(iv) Stitched wound 4 cm. x bone deep right side of the head 11 cm. above right ear.

(v) Stitch wound 4 cm. x bone deep right side of the head 15 cm. above right ear.

(vi) Stitched wound 10 cm. x bone deep right side of head 10 cm. above and behind right ear.

(vii) Traumatic swelling right forearm and dorsum 5 cm. x .5 cm. with underlying fracture of radius and ulna.

(viii) Traumatic swelling 6 cm. x 4 cm. on dorsum of right hand.

On internal examination, Dr. Mal found fracture of occipital and parietal bone, as also linear fracture through and through of middle cranial fossa left side. He also found haemotoema over and under brain on both sides.

The cause of death spelt out in the post-mortem report and stated by Dr. M. B. Mal in his deposition in the trial court, was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

In his statement in the trial court, Dr. M. B. Mal stated that ante-mortem injuries suffered by the deceased were attributable to lathi and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The investigation of the case was conducted in the usual manner by S.O. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari (P.W. 6). His evidence shows thus: Between July, 1978 and April, 1979 he was posted as Station Officer at police station, Haiderganj, district Faizabad. The F.I.R. of the case and G.D. entry pertaining to its registration was received from police station, Kotwali, district Faizabad on 14.11.1978 at police station, Haiderganj at 12.15 p.m. On the said date at 3.30 p.m. he left for the place of the incident. On 15.11.1978 he recorded the statements of informant Manzoor Ali (P.W. 1), Jai Ram (P.W. 2) and Pheru. On their pointing out he prepared the site plan (exhibit Ka-15). Inside the field of Pheru he found blood stained earth and took therefrom the same and plain earth in separate containers under recovery memos.

Some other investigation was also conducted in the instant case. But since in our view a reference to it is not necessary for the decision of this appeal we are not adverting to it.

On completion of the investigation the Appellants and the acquitted accused were charge-sheeted.

The case was committed to Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where the Appellants and the acquitted accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 302/149, I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

During trial, in all, the prosecution examined six witnesses. Two of them, namely, Manzoor Ali and Jai Ram, P. Ws. 1 and 2 respectively were examined as eye-witnesses.

The defence of the Appellants was of denial and no defence witness was examined by them.

The learned trial Judge believed the ocular account furnished by the aforesaid two eye-witnesses vis-a-vis Basharat, Nurul Haque, Raham Ali Khan, Syed Khan, Harun alias Nanhu, Jalil and Rozzan alias Rajjan and convicted and sentenced them in the manner stated in para 1. He however, gave six co-accused persons, namely Jamil, Saghir, Shakeel, Iliyas, Nazir and Mashooq the benefit of doubt because the evidence against them was only of exhortation and the said evidence was a very weak type of evidence.

Aggrieved by their convictions and sentences, the seven Appellants, namely, Basharat, Nurul Haq, Raham Ali Khan, Syed Khan, Harun alias Nanhu, Jalil and Rozzan alias Rajjan preferred the present appeal.

We have heard Mr. G. K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Umesh Verma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State of U.P. We have also perused: the depositions of the prosecution witnesses ; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution ; the statements of the Appellants recorded u/s 313, Cr. P.C. ; and the impugned judgment. We are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in this appeal.

As would become manifest from the above, the conviction of the Appellants is founded on the ocular account furnished by the informant Manzoor Ali (P.W. 1) and Jai Ram (P.W. 2). We now propose giving our reasons as to why we find it creditworthy.

We begin with that furnished by informant Manzoor Ali (P.W. 1). Since in para 2 of our judgment, we have set out the prosecution story on the basis of the recitals contained in his examination-in-chief, we do not want to burden our judgment by reiterating all the details. In short, his evidence shows thus:

There was enmity between him and his son Mohd. Islam on one side and the Appellants and the acquitted accused on the other (in para 2 we have furnished the details of the enmity between them). The Appellants and the acquitted accused were inter-related. Appellant Rozzan and acquitted accused Mashooq were sons of Aziz Khan. Appellant Rozzan and Noorul Haque were sarhoos (their wives being sisters). Appellant Noorul-Haque was the cousin of Appellant Basharat. Appellant Haroon alias Nanhoo and acquitted accused Iliyas were real nephews of Appellant Basharat. Appellant Jalil and acquitted accused Jamil were uncle''s son of Appellant Basharat. Appellant Syed was the nephew of Basharat.

On 13.11.1978 at about 8.00 a.m., he was watering his field situated to the west of Jai Ram''s field. At the said time, Jai Ram (P.W. 2) was present in his field and Pheru and Bechu in theirs. Their fields adjoined that of his (the informant). At that time, Mohd. Islam along with his buffaloes was going to the grazing ground. When he reached near the field of Appellant Haroon alias Nanhoo, he saw the seven Appellants, namely, Basharat, Nurul Haq, Rahman Ali Khan, Syed Khan, Harun alias Nanhu, Jalil and Rozzan alias Rajjan, along with six acquitted accused, namely, Jamil, Saghir, Shakeel, Iliyas, Nazir and Mashooq, all being armed with lathis, chasing Mohd. Islam. The acquitted accused were instigating that he be killed. After chasing Mohd. Islam to a distance of 150 yards, the Appellants and acquitted accused overpowered him in Pheru Khan''s field and the Appellants assaulted Mohd. Islam with lathis on the instigation of six acquitted accused in terms "Mar Dalo, Mar Dalo", (kill him, Kill him). Seeing Mohd. Islam being assaulted, he (informant), Jai Ram, Bechu and Pheru rushed to the place of the incident. After assaulting Mohd. Islam, the Appellants along with acquitted accused ran away. Thereafter he saw Mohd. Islam had fallen unconscious in the field of Pheru Khan and blood was oozing out from his injuries. He then got a cot ; on the same took Mohd. Islam to the village ; put a bedding on the cot in the village ; thereafter took Mohd. Islam to Police Out-Post Chaukebazar, where policemen arranged for a taxi and sent him to P.H.C., Bikapur, where first aid was given to Mohd. Islam and he was advised that Mohd. Islam be taken to District Hospital, Faizabad. He complied with the said advice and took him to the said hospital where he was medically examined and at 12.45 p.m., succumbed to his injuries. He thereafter dictated the F.I.R. to his son Ayub and lodged the same at police station, Kotwali, district Faizabad.

We have gone through the evidence of informant Manzoor Ali and make no bones in observing that we find him to be an implicitly truthful witness.

In the first place, he has explained his presence on the place of incident. He stated that on the date and time of the incident, he was watering his field situated next to the field of Jai Ram (P.W. 2) and seeing his son Mohd. Islam being chased by the Appellants and the acquitted accused, rushed to the field of Pheru, where they overpowered him and the Appellants inflicted fatal lathis blows on his person.

Secondly, the manner of assault furnished by him is corroborated by medical evidence. He stated that on the instigation of six acquitted accused in terms that Mohd. Islam be killed, the seven Appellants assaulted Mohd. Islam with lathis. The medical evidence corroborates this. It is significant to point out that Dr. M. B. Mal, who medically examined Mohd. Islam in his life time and performed autopsy on his corpse, found on his person nine blunt weapon injuries, which he recorded in his injury report, and eight blunt weapon injuries, which he noted in the autopsy report. Since according to the prosecution only the seven Appellants are said to have assaulted the deceased and not the six acquitted accused, presence of eight or nine blunt weapon injuries on the person of the deceased, corroborates the prosecution case that the deceased was assaulted by seven Appellants with lathis.

Assurance to the ocular account furnished by Manzoor Ali is also forthcoming by two other circumstances ; the first being the strong motive on the part of the Appellants to commit the crime. It is significant to point out that all the Appellants are inter-related, (we have referred to the motive in para 2 and to the inter-se relationship between the Appellants in para 15 and do not want to burden our judgment by reiterating the details either in respect of motive or inter-se relationship between the Appellants).

The second circumstance which lends a seal of assurance to the ocular account furnished by the informant is that according to him, his son Mohd. Islam was assaulted by the Appellants in the field of Pheru and the Investigating Officer Shailendra Kumar Tewari P.W. 6, who visited the place of incident on 15.11.1978 (two days after the incident) found on the same blood stained earth. It is true that there was a delay of two days on the part of S.I. Shailendra Kumar Tewari in visiting the place of incident ( the incident took place on 13.11.1978 and he visited it on 15.11.1978) but there is a cogent reason for the same. We have seen that the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on 13.11.1978 at police station, Kotwali, district Faizabad and on 14.11.1978 the papers including the F.I.R. G.D. entry, pertaining to the registration of the case, etc. were received in police station, Haiderganj, within the limits of which crime was committed. The evidence of S.I. Tewari shows that on 14.11.1978 at 3.30 p.m. he reached the place of incident. In these circumstances, he cannot be faulted in recovering the blood stained earth on 15.11.1978.

For the aforesaid reasons, in our view, the evidence of the informant Manzoor Ali P.W. 1 inspires confidence. In our judgment, the learned trial Judge was justified in accepting the same and in convicting the Appellants on its basis.

We now take up the evidence of Jai Ram P.W. 2. His evidence shows: He is a resident of village Rasoolpur. On the date of the incident at about 8 a.m., he was preparing his field, situated at the out-skirts of village Rasoolpur, for the purposes of ploughing. At the said time, deceased Mohd. Islam was taking his buffaloes for the purposes of grazing in the northern direction. At that juncture, he saw seven Appellants Basharat, Nurul Haq, Raham Ali Khan, Syed Khan, Harun alias Nanhu, Jalil and Rozzan alias Rajjan along with six acquitted accused Jamil, Saghir, Shakeel, Iliyas, Nazir and Mashooq, all being armed with lathis, chasing Mohd. Islam. They overpowered him in the field of Pheru and there the Appellants on the instigation of the acquitted accused that Mohd. Islam be killed, assaulted him with lathis. Seeing the incident he, informant Manzoor Ali, Bechu and Pheru also reached the place of incident. After assaulting Mohd. Islam, the Appellants and the acquitted accused persons ran away. Thereafter, they saw that Mohd. Islam was badly injured. Blood was oozing out from his injuries. The said blood fell on the place of incident. Thereafter, the informant arranged for a cot and on the same took Mohd. Islam to the village and he went back to his field.

We have gone through the evidence of Jai Ram P.W. 2 and find him to be a wholly credible witness.

In the first place, like informant Manzoor Ali, he has explained his presence on the place of incident. He has stated that on the date and time of the incident while he was preparing his field for the purposes of ploughing he saw the Appellants and the acquitted accused, all armed with lathis, chasing Mohd. Islam. The former assaulted him on the instigation of the latter in terms that he be killed.

Secondly, like informant Manzoor Ali, the manner of assault furnished by him is corroborated by medical evidence. He stated that seven Appellants with lathis assaulted Mohd. Islam and we have seen that Dr. M. B. Mal (P.W. 3), who examined Mohd. Islam, both in his life time and performed autopsy on his corpse, noted in his life time medical examination report nine blunt weapon injuries and on his corpse, while performing autopsy, eight blunt weapon injuries.

Again like the informant Manzoor Ali, assurance to Jai Ram''s claim of having seen the incident is forthcoming from circumstantial evidence. He stated that Mohd. Islam was assaulted in the field of Pheru where blood fell. We have seen that the Investigating Officer recovered blood stained earth from Pheru''s field.

For the aforesaid reasons in our view, the evidence of Jai Ram also inspires confidence.

In our view, the learned trial Judge acted correctly in convicting the Appellants on the both counts, namely, under Sections 147 and 302/149, I.P.C. ; on the former because the Appellants were members of an unlawful assembly and committed the offence of rioting ; on the latter because a perusal of both the life time medical examination report of Mohd. Islam and his autopsy report shows that the first six injuries suffered by him were in the region of head. A perusal of the post-mortem report also shows that the autopsy surgeon found fracture of occipital and parietal bones, as also of linear fracture through and through of middle cranial fossa on left side. It is significant to point out that the evidence of autopsy surgeon is that the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. It is pertinent to mention that the said injuries were inflicted by the Appellants on the exhortation of the six co-accused, namely, Jamil, Shakeel, Iliyas, Nazir, Saghir and Mashooq that he be killed. It is true that the said persons have been given the benefit of doubt but a reading of the impugned judgment would show that the learned trial Judge has not disbelieved their participation in the incident but, inasmuch as evidence of exhortation is a very weak type of evidence, by way of abundant caution, has given them the benefit of doubt.

At any rate, in our judgment, even if the story of instigation is not believed, the fact remains that the seven Appellants chased the deceased and inflicted as many as six blows on his head with lathi, which involved fracture of three head bones. It is significant to mention that such was ferocity of the assault launched by the Appellants on the deceased that the same day at 12.45 p.m. (within four hours and forty five minutes of having been assaulted), the deceased succumbed to his injuries. In our view the said facts coupled with the motive for the incident and the immediate motive namely, that preceding night at 9.00 to 10.00 p.m. Appellants Noorul Haque, Rozzan, Sayed and one Shakeel came to the house of Mohd. Islam and an altercation and exchange of abuses took place between them and Mohd. Islam ; because the latter had cut a branch of plumb tree and thereafter said Appellants and Shakeel went away threatening Mohd. Islam they would see him next morning, leads to the irresistible inference that all the Appellants, who are inter-related, launched a lathi assault on Mohd. Islam in prosecution of their common object to murder him.

We would be failing in our fairness if before proceeding to the operative part of the judgment, we do not refer to the principal submissions canvassed by Mr. G. K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the Appellants for assailing the testimony of both the eye-witnesses namely, Manzoor Ali (P.W. 1) and Jai Ram (P.W. 2).

Before we start dealing with the individual criticism levelled by Mr. Mehrotra against the testimony of both these eye-witnesses, we would like to refer to a common criticism furnished by him, namely, that inasmuch as these witnesses in parrot like manner nominated six acquitted accused, namely, Jamil, Saghir, Shakeel, Iliyas, Nazir and Mashooq, in the same breath as the seven Appellants, namely, Basharat, Nurul Haq, Raham Ali Khan, Syed Khan, Harun alias Nanhu, Jalil and Rozzan alias Rajjan, it would not be prudent to accept their testimony, against the seven Appellants. We have reflected over the said submission and are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in it. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that learned trial Judge was pleased to acquit the said persons because the only role attributed to them was of exhortation and evidence pertaining to exhortation was very weak in nature. For this reason, the learned Judge acquitted them by way of abundant caution. It is pertinent to mention that the trial Judge has not found their participation to be false.

For the said reasons, in our view, there is no impediment in our way in accepting the testimony of the said eye-witnesses vis-a-vis seven Appellants. Hence, this submission fails.

Coming to the evidence of Manzoor Ali, Mr. Mehrotra contended that his evidence cannot be relied upon for the following reasons.

He firstly contended that since he was the father of the deceased Mohd. Islam, it would not be safe to act on his testimony. We regret we do not find any merit in this submission. Way back in the year 1965 in the oft-quoted case of Masalti Vs. State of U.P., , the Apex Court has held that in the circumstance a witness is interested or related does not, ipso facto result in the rejection of his evidence, but only makes the Court evaluate it with caution. We have exercised the said caution and find it to be creditworthy. Hence, the first submission of Mr. Mehrotra fails.

Secondly, Mr. Mehrotra urged that the evidence of Manzoor Ali shows that the inquest on the corpse of the deceased Mohd. Islam was performed in his presence, but in the inquest report, it is not stated that thirteen persons participated in the incident ; instead it has been mentioned therein that only seven persons participated in it and even their names have not been furnished. Mr. Mehrotra contended that this circumstance shows that the claim of the informant that he witnessed the incident, is concocted. We have reflected over the said submission and are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in it. It is significant to mention that Manzoor Ali (P.W. 1) is not a witness of the inquest and he cannot be faulted if the details in the inquest report are at variance with the details furnished by him. That apart, the inquest in the instant case was conducted by S.I. Ravindra Kumar Singh (P.W. 5) of police station, Kotwali, district Faizabad. In his cross-examination not a single question was put to him. The Appellants could only have derived mileage from the inquest report if their counsel had put it to him whether he had asked Manzoor Ali the names of the assailants of the deceased. In fact no question was put to him therein as to why in the inquest, names of the Appellants and the acquitted accused were not mentioned.

That apart, the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Abdul and Ors. 1997 ACR 743 (SC) : 1997 SCC 804, has in paras 9 to 11 held that the evidence of the eye-witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground that it was inconsistent with the recitals in the inquest report. As a matter of fact, in our case, eye-witness Manzoor Ali is not a witness of the inquest.

It should be borne in mind that the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Rai v. Mithilesh Rai and Ors. 1997 SCC 899 in para 9 has held that even if the eye-witnesses are witnesses of the inquest, their evidence cannot be rejected merely on the ground of discrepancy in their evidence regarding the time of preparation of the inquest report and the absence of the names of the assailants in the same. In the said para, the Supreme Court has held that Section 174(1), Cr. P.C. (said provisions relates to inquest) does not require that the names of the assailants be mentioned in the inquest report.

For the said reasons, this submissions fails.

Thirdly, Mr. Mehrotra contended that the F.I.R. is inordinately belated and this delay is suggestive of the fact that the informant Manzoor Ali did not see the incident. Mr. Mehrotra invited our attention to the examination-in-chief of the informant wherein he stated that he had reached police station, Kotwali at 4.30 p.m. He contended that since the F.I.R. was lodged two hours later, i.e., 6.30 p.m., this shows the informant did not see the incident and the F.I.R. was the outcome of deliberations and confabulation. We regret we do not find any merit in this submission either. It is significant to point out that in the course of his cross-examination, Manzoor Ali stated that he had given written F.I.R. to the Munshi at police station Kotwali at 5.00 p.m. That being so, in our view, he cannot be faulted if Munshi (Head Moharrir) registered the case on its basis at 6.30 p.m.

As a matter of fact , we would like to emphasise that although Constable Clerk Ram Charit Pandey (P.W. 4), who had registered the case on the basis of the F.I.R., was suggested during cross-examination that the informant had come to the police station prior to 6.30 p.m. (the time when the case was registered on the basis of the F.I.R.) he categorically denied the said suggestion and stated thus "Vaadi Mukadama Ukt Thana Par 18.30 Baje Mere Paas Aaya Tha, Iske Pahle Vaadi Ukt Tarikh Ko Thana Par Mere Pass Nahin Aaya Tha. Yeh Kahna Galat Hain Ki Vaadi Uske Pahle Thana Par Aaya Tha, Phir Maine Uske Bayan Ki Tahriri Rapat Likha". (In English the said lines would read thus: the complainant had come to me at the police station at 6.30 p.m. On the said date he had not come to me at the police station before the said time. It is wrong to say that he had gone to the police station before the said time and I had registered the case on his F.I.R.). It is common knowledge that witnesses living in rural areas like Manzoor Ali (P.W. 1) do not have a chronometric sense of time. Therefore, when Manzoor Ali in his examination-in-chief stated that he reached the police station Kotwali, district Faizabad at 4.30 p.m. and during his cross-examination stated that he gave the copy of the F.I.R. to the Munshi at 5.00 p.m., his statement should not be taken as gospel truth.

Fourthly, Mr. Mehrotra contended that the evidence of Manzoor Ali (P.W. 1) shows that he was at a considerable distance from the place where the Appellants and the acquitted accused were chasing and assaulting the deceased and consequently his evidence in respect of the overt acts which he attributed to them cannot be accepted. We regret we do not find any merit in this submission. From the cross-examination of Manzoor Ali it becomes crystal clear that the field he was irrigating at the time of the incident was at a distance of about 150 paces from the place of the incident. This would mean that Manzoor Ali was approximately at a distance of about 100-120 yards from the place of the incident. It should be borne that after seeing the Appellants and the acquitted accused chasing his son Mohd. Islam he must not have remained standing on his field but instead would have run to save his son. In that view of the matter, he would have seen the assault made by the Appellants on Mohd. Islam from a much closer distance. That apart in his cross-examination no question was put to him as to how he could see the assault on the deceased and hear exhortation to kill him from a distance of 100-120 yards (150 paces).

Coming to the evidence of Jai Ram (P.W. 2) Mr. Mehrotra contended that since in his cross-examination he admitted that the informant Manzoor Ali had given him patta in respect of the field on which he was present at the time of the incident, he had mortgaged his loyalties to him and, therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon. We regret we do not find any merit in this submission. In his cross-examination when he was questioned whether it was right that Manzoor Ali had given him patta, he replied that when others got patta from the Government, Manzoor Ali also gave him a patta. In such a situation, in our view, there was no special reason for him to be grateful to Manzoor Ali and to speak falsely in his favour. In our view, what at the most emerges from the circumstance that Manzoor Ali gave patta to him, is that he is an interested witness, who would have a soft corner for Manzoor Ali. It is well-settled that the law only enjoins that the testimony of an interested witness be evaluated with caution and not mechanically rejected. We have exercised the said caution and find it to be credible.

No other significant submission was canvassed before us by Mr. G. K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the Appellants.

In the result, we uphold the convictions and sentences of the seven Appellants, namely, Basharat, Nurul Haq, Raham Ali Khan, Syed Khan, Harun alias Nanhu, Jalil and Rozzan alias Rajjan on both the counts, namely, under Sections 147, I.P.C. and 302/149, I.P.C. ; and dismiss this appeal. The Appellants are on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentences.