I.S. Israni, J.
1. This criminal appeal Under Section 374(2), Cr. PC has been filed against the judgment and order dated June 3, 1981 and June 6, 1981 respectively passed by Kerned District and Sessions Judge, Bundi in Criminal Case No. 84/1980 whereby the accused persons have been convicted as under: Accused-Appellant Kalu has been convicted Under Section 304, Part-I, IPC, to 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo a further imprisonment for a period of 6 months R.I He has also been convicted Under Section 323, IPC, to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs 2,00/- In default of payment of fine he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both sentences are to run concurrently. Accused-Appellant Ghasi has been sentenced Under Section 304, Part-I read with Section 34, IPC td 4 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months rigorous imprisonment. He has also-been convicted Under Section 323 IPC, to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 month.
2. It will suffice to state for the purposes of this appeal that an 7-2-1980 Gordhan filed a verbal report at Police-station Kotwali, Bundi at 12.40 a.m. which states that his brother Mathuralal and uncle Chunnilal who is suffering from typhoid were beaten by Ghasilal, Ganshyam, Chothmal at about 10.30 p.m. They accompanied by Bhawana Meena and Brijmohan Brahmin resident of Borkhandi. On hearing shouts of his uncle his brother Mathuralal came to save the situation whereupon Kalu and Ghasi gave him blows with lathis on account of which he received injuries on his head. How ever, no blood oosed out from head of Mathuralal. It further states that be and Ram Chandra Gurjar on hearing shouts of his brother Mathuralal came and tried to save Mathuralal whereupon Ghasi gave one blow with Lathi on Gordhan which hit him on left sholder and second lathi was given by Kalu which hit him on left hand and Kalu also gave blow to Ram Chandra which hit to Ram Chandra on left hand. Ghasi also gave lathi blow to Ram Chandra on his head on account of which blood came out from his head. Thereafter Ghasi again gave blow with lathi to Ram Chandra which bit him on light leg. Complainant rushed to Phoolsagar and arranged Ambassador Car in which the injured was brought to Bundi Hospital. The report was not lodged at Dablana Police Station oat of fear, therefore, the report was lodged at Bundi Police Station and it is further stated that injured Mathuralal is admitted in hospital at Bundi. After getting him admitted in hospital the complainant has come along with Ram Chandra to lodge the report which is Ex. P 5 his report was registered without number and is marked Ex.P 5-B. Since the incident came within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dablana therefore, a copy of this report Ex.P 5-B was sent to Dablana for getting the office registered whereupon Ex.P. 22 was registered and a case No. 35/80 Under Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC, came to be investigated during investigation Ram Chandra, Gordhan and Mathura were medically examined. X-rays of the injured persons were also taken. On death of injured Mathura postmortem of his dead body was also held. The accused-persons were arrested and on their information and guidance the sticks used in the incident were also recovered after investigation, the accused-persons were challaned Under Sections 148, 149 and 302 IPC, and after the trial two of the accused-persons were sentenced to imprisonment as stated above and three of them were acquitted.
3. Shri Biri Singh, learned Counsel for the accused-appellants has raised four points before me. His first contention is that even though the incident took place on 6-9-1980 at about 10 p.m., FIR was lodged at Police Station Dablana only on 8-9-1980 as is evident from Ex.P 22, the second contention of the learned Counsel is that no independent witness of the place where the incident took place have been produced, thirdly it is contended that no motive has been proved by the prosecution for causing injuries to the deceased Mathura and lastly it is contended that the allegations against both the accused-appellants are that each one of them gave blow with sticks on his head, therefore, there should have been two injuries on the head of the deceased but from the medical evidence it is conclusively proved that the deceased had received only one injury en head therefore, it cannot be said which of the accused-appellants caused this fatal injury to the deceased Mathuralal.
4. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel is regarding late filing of the FIR. The incident took place on 6-9-1980 around 9.00 p.m. Gordhan PW 4 lodged report regarding the incident on 7-9- 1980 at about 12.40 a.m. at Police Station, Bundi. This witness in his statement while explaining the situation has stated that he did not sent anyone to lodge a report at Police Station Dablana at night because it was about 7-8 km, away from the place of incident. He has further stated that since he filed FIR at Police Station, Bundi, therefore, he did not deem it necessary to file separate FIR, at Dablana. Ram Chandra PW 1 has also stated in his statement that after getting the injured Mathura admitted in Hospital he along with Gordhan went to Police Station, Bundi to lodge the report. It has been dearly established from the various statements of the witnesses that deceased Mathura became unconscious after beatings were given to him. Doctor Bagdi PW 7 has also stated in his statement that when the injured was brought in the Hospital be was unconscious. In such circumstances it is only correct that the first priority was given for getting the injured admitted to the Hospital and only thereafter Gordhan PW 4 and Ram Chandra PW 1 went to Police Station, Bundi to lodge the First Information Report. The incident has taken place on 6-9-1980 around 9.00 p.m. and the FIR was lodged on 7-9-1980 at about 12.30 a.m., therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR, was lodged late. FIR, Ex. P. 5 was written in Rojnamcha at Police Station Bundi and Ex. P. 5-A is copy of the report which was not numbered an Ex-P. 5-B is the copy of FIR which was sent to Police Station, Dablana which was registered as No. 35/80 and is marked Ex.P. 22, this was done on 8-9-1980. In these circumstance it cannot be said that the FIR, was filed late. It is only natural that the first anxity of the relative is to get the injured proper medical aid and get him admitted, to hospital first than to rush to Police Station for lodging the report. It cannot be expected from them that they would give priority to filing of FIR rather than giving proper medical aid to the injured person. I, therefore, do not find any force in this contention of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant.
5. The next contention raised by the learned Counsel is that the statements of PW 1 Ram Chandra, PW 2 Chottya, PW 3 Chunnilal and PW 4 Gordhan are insufficient to prove that the accused-appellants were responsible for causing death of deceased Mathuralal. It is also contended that no, independent witnesses have been produced even though there were houses, around the place of incident. It is also contended that infact PW 2 Chhotya can be said to be the only eye-witness and his statement also does not prove that which of the accused-appellants caused the fatal injuries on the head of the deceased person. It will, therefore, be necessary to analyse the statements of the witnesses referred to by the learned Counsel. Ram Chandra PW 1 has stated that on the day of occurrence at about 8-9 p.m. he was coming after purchasing Bidi from the market along with Gordhan. When they reached near Mandir they heard shouts. They found Mathura lying about 30 yards away from Mandir. Accused-appellant Ghasi and Kalu along with Ghanshyam, Brijmohan and Chothmal were standing there. All of them were armed with sticks. When the witness tried to pick-up the injured Mathura they were also beaten by the accused-persons. He further states that Kalu gave him lathi blow on left hand. Ghasi also gave him lathi blow on left hand. Gordhan PW 4 was also, beaten by both these accused-persons, with sticks. Thereafter, some how they picked injured Mathura and took him inside the house. At that time injured Mathura was unconscious. No blood was coming out from any of the injuries caused to the injured Mathura. Gordhan PW 4 who is brother of deceased Mathura told him that he was going to Phoolsagar to arrange for a Car and he should bring injured Mathura in bullock-carts to that place. Mathura was brought in Car to Bundi Hospital. They reached Bundi at about 11.00 P.M. on reaching Bundi they immediately got the injured Mathura admitted in Hospital. Injured Mathura died on the next day at about 4.00 P.M. in the Hospital. In cross examination this witness has stated that he did not see any of the accused person beating injured Mathura, he could not remember correctly whether in the persons who were standing at the time of incident near injured Mathura accused-Ghanshyam was also there or not. This witness has further stated that even though certain houses were there near the place where the incident took place he did not find any of the person living in the area at that time He how ever states that he found Bhawana father of accused Kalu on nearby Doli. He further states that he and PW 4 Gordhan reached the spot together. He further states that he found Chhotya standing at the door of the house. He also states that he did not find any external injuries on the person of injured Mathura. It can, therefore be said that this witness has given correct version of what ever he saw at the time when he reached the spot He does not stapes that other three accused-persons also caused injuries to him and to Gordhan but clearly mentions that only the two accused-appellant gave beatings to them. It can therefore, be said that the statement of this witness inspires confidence to the extent that what ever he saw he has described correctly in his statement. Chhotya PW 2 is brother of Chunni Lal. In his statement this witness states that Chunnilal was sitting outside the house on Chabutra and he was eating food inside the house. Mathura was relaxing on the cough at that time. Soon thereafter he heard shouts of Chunnilal. He thought that he is making unnecessary notice since he was not well He came out but before him deceased Mathura came out of the house. This witness states that he saw accused-appellant Ghasi giving blow with, stick to Mathura on his head On account of this blow Mathura fell on the ground. Thereafter Kalu gave one blow with stick on the head of Mathura while he was lying on the floor. Accused Chothmal, Ghanshyam and Barja were also standing there at that time. How ever, they did not give any beatings to Mathura. He further states that Chothmal and Barja were armed with sticks but be could not say same about Ghanshyam. When be reached near Mathura? Kalu gave him blow with stick on his left sholder. Thereupon, he told him that why are we beating even a person who has come to save the situation. On hearing this accused-appellant Ghasi gave and blow with stick on his right hand. Thereafter, he rushed inside his house. He further states that at that time Ram Chandra and Gordhan came on the spot and they picked up Mathura and brought him inside the house. Mathura was unconscious at that time and thereafter he was taken by Ram Chandra, Gordhan and others to hospital Chunnilal PW 3 has stated that the incident took place at about 8 00 p m. He further states that Ghasi appellant came from Bazar to him at that time and was having a stick in his hand. Ghasi at that time was wearing a 'Tahmad'. This witness told appellant Ghasi that 'Tahmad' should be used at home and it does not look proper to wear it when one moves out of the house. Ghasi thereupon, said that there was nothing in wearing 'Tahmad' outside the house but this witness again repeated that it should not be used outside the house Thereupon Ghasi gave a blow with his stick on the Cart standing nearby. The witness thereupon, asked him what is he doing. Ghasi thereupon gave a vissle and loudly said that Kalu should be ready. He states that Kalu lives nearby. On hearing whistle Kalu, Chothmal and few other 7 or 8 other persons came there This witness further states that he was not keeping well at that time and was suffering from fever He also states that Ghasi and Kalu gave beatings to Mathura. He states that Mathura was earlier in the house and came out from the house and was given beating thereafter. Mathura was taken inside the house by Gordhan and few other persons and thereafter he was taken to hospital at Bundi. This witness further states that he saw Mathura being beaten himself with his own eyes. He also states that they did not have any quarrel with the accused-appellant before the incident. This witness was confronted with his statement Ex. D. 2 recorded Under Section 161, Cr. PC Gordhan PW 4 states that the incident took place at about 800/900 p m. He states that he and Ram Chandra were coming from Bazar and when they reached near Mandir they found Mathura lying on the floor. At that time all the 5 accused-persons were standing near Mathura. When he and Ram Chandra tried to pick-up Mathura to take him inside the house, accused-appellant Ghasi and Kalu gave him beating. He further states that Ghasi and Kalu each of them gave him one stick blow on left sholder. His bushirt was also torn-up. Thereafter he and Ram Chandra picked-up Mathura and brought him inside the house of Chunnilal. This witness thereafter went to Fool Sagar to arrange for Car for taking the injured Mathura to hospital. Injured Mathura was brought in bullock-cart to Foolsagar from where he was taken in car to Bundi hospital, after getting him admitted in hospital, this witness went to lodge FIR to Police Station, Bundi.
6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Ram Chandra PW 1 and Gordhan PW 4 have not seen any of the accused-appellants giving beating to deceased Mathura he contended that they statement of Chunnilal PW 3 is self contradictory and PW 2 Chhotya is the only eye-witness but his presence is doubtful as his name is not mentioned in the FIR. It is contend that no independent eye-witnesses have been produced. It is further pointed out by the learned Counsel that accused persons Ghasi, Kalu and Brij Mohan also received injuries but the prosecution has failed to explain the same. It can be said that statements of Ram Chandra PW 1 and Gordhan PW 4 do inspire confidence. They have clearly said that they did not see any of the accused-persons beating deceased Mathura but have stated that they were beaten by both accused-appellants when they came to pick up injured Mathura who was lying on the floor. Thus, they do not try to involve any one else and have stated what they have seen and what actually occurred with them. It is pointed out by learned Counsel that Gordhan PW 4 in report lodged at Police Station Ex P. 5 has stated that the accused-persons were beating Chunnilal and when Mathura intervened Kalu and Ghasi gave beating with sticks to him also, how ever in the court he has not given this version, therefore his statement cannot be said to be reliable. But it may be pointed out that PW 4 Gordhan has given explanation about the same and has stated that he wrote in the report as he was told by Chunnilal. Therefore, after this explanation the question of any contradiction does not arise. This witness Gordhan never stated that he himself saw accused-persons beating Mathura. Minor contradictions while describing any incident are only natural and on this account it cannot be held that the statement of the prosecution witnesses are an any way unreliable or do not inspire any confidence. PW 3 Chunnilal in this statement has clearly stated that when accused-appellant Ghasi came he was sitting at Chabutra outside his house and be pointed out of him that he show not wear 'Tahmad' when he moves out the house. This evidently was a point on which the quarrel started. Chunnilal PW 3 has not been cross-examined on his this version. So far as the presence of Chhotya PW 2 is concerned Ram Chandra PW 1 in his statement has stated that he saw Chhotya standing at the door of his house In cross examination a suggestion was given to witness Ram Chandra that infact the quarrel started between Chhotya and Ghasi which was repelled by him. This shows that Chhotya was present at the time of occurrence. During cross examination a suggestion was given to witness Ram Chandra and also to Chhotya PW 2 and Gordhan PW 4 that quarrel started on account of Chhotya giving abuses to Ghasi for wearing 'Tahmad', how ever this suggestion was repelled by all the witnesses. This also clearly proves the presence of Chhotya at the time of occurrence. It may further be pointed out that accused-appellants filed a report Ex.P 20 against the complainant party in which it has been mentioned that Chhotya was also present at that time. In their statements the witnesses have clearly stated that none of neighbours had come out at the time of occurrence. It can be said that generally in rural areas the villagers generally do not come-forwared willingly to give evidence as they feel that if they give evidence on behalf of either of the party they may invite wrath of the other party. Therefore, the general tendency is to avoid to be present on such occasion and to leave the parties to settle the score amongst themselves. In such matters, therefore, it cannot be said merely because some persons living in the area have not been produced as witnesses, therefore, the evidence actually giving by the persons who were, present should not be considered to be reliable on such grounds.
7. The next contention raised by the learned Counsel is that no motive has been proved on account of which the accused-persons might have committed this crime. From the evidence discussed above it can be seen that it has been proved how the quarrel started. The prosecution witnesses have clearly said that earlier to the incident they had no quarrel or enmity amongst themselves. It has also come in the evidence that when Chunnilal told accused-appellant Ghasi that it was improper to wear 'Tahmad' while he moves out of the house he became enranged and the quarrel started. In any case it may be pointed out that it is always not possible for the prosecution to prove motive for committing the crime. There is no doubt that proof of motive does satisfy the judicial-conscience about the likelyhood of the authorship of the crime, but its absence cannot wipe-out the effect of the evidence which has been brought on the record and his otherwise sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-persons. Motives are many a times shrouded in mistry and routed deep in the mind of the accused-persons and it may not be always easy to prove the same. Motive can only land additional support to the findings of the Court regarding the guilt of the accused but if there is absence of clear motive it does not necessary lead to the conclusion that the accused-persons are not guilty of the offence alleged to have been commit by them. Mere absence of motive would not reflect upon the credibility of the witnesses who are otherwise considered to be reliable and whose statements inspired confidence. I, therefore, do not find any force in this contention of the learned Counsel.
8. The learned Counsel also, pointed out that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries caused to the accused-appellants. It may be pointed out that even the accused-persons themselves in their statements recorded Under Section 313, Cr. PC have not mentioned of any injuries that they may have received during the occurrence. During the recording of their statement Under Section 313, Cr. PC it was pointed out to the persons Brij Mohan, Kalu and Ghasi as to how they received these injuries but their reply was that they do not know anythings about the same. DW 1 Bhawna has himself stated in his statement that he did not see any injury on the person of Kalu at the time of the dispute. Except PW 1 Ram Chandra none of the other prosecution witnesses were cross-examination the injuries alleged to have bees caused to accused persons during the quarrel. Therefore, in such circumstances it cannot be even said that whatever simple injuries accused Kalu, Brij Mohan and Ghasi received were caused them during the dispute. From the statement of Dr. S.N. Bagdi PW 7 it is cleat that the injuries found on the person of above mentioned 3 accused-persons were of minor and Simple in nature.
9. The last contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that according to the evidence of prosecution accused-appellant Kalu and Ghasi gave one blow each with stick on the bead of deceased Mathura. How ever, from Ex. P. 15 injury report and Ex. P. 19 postmortem report it is clear that only one injury was caused to deceased Mathura on his head. It is, therefore, contended that it cannot be said which of the two accused-appellant was responsible for causing this fatal injury on the head of the deceased Mathura. I have carefully considered the contention raised by the learned Counsel. Ram Chandra and Gordhan witnesses have not seen the accused-appellant beating the deceased person. Chhotya PW 2 and Chunnilal PW 3 have made improvements in their version given in the court. According to learned Counsel the only eye witness in this case is Chhotya who in his statement Ex. D. 1 recorded Under Section 161 Cr. P. C has clearly stated that Kalu gave a forceful blow on the head of deceased Mathura with stick. This witness has not mentioned about Ghasi giving blow to deceased Mathura on his head in his this statement. Therefore, there is no doubt that Kalu this give a forceful blow on the head of deceased Mathura on account of which he died. PW 3 Chunnilal in his statement recorded Under Section 161, Cr. PC. Ex. P. 2 has stated that when he told Ghasi that he should not wear 'Tahmad' when he comes out of his house and soon there after he became furious on account of which fearing that Ghasi will give him beatings with his stick he raised shouts and ran away inside the house. He also states that on hearing his shouts Mathura and Chhotya came out of the house, soon thereafter Gordhan and Ram Chandra brought Mathura inside the house while he was unconscious. Thus from the statement of Chhotya it can be clearly said that Kalu did give a forceful blow on the head of deceased Mathura on account of which be died. Thus, there is no contradiction between this version given by Chhotya and medical evidence on record. Keeping in view the statement of Chunnilal PW 3 recorded Under Section 161 Cr. P. C it can be said that his version that Ghasi and Kalu gave beatings to Mathura cannot be accepted How ever, on this account his whole statement cannot brushed aside as unreliable. It is well settled that the principles falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in our country. I am, therefore, of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove that Kalu and Ghasi accused appellants formed common intention which came up at the spur of the moment to give beating to Mathura and also to Gordhan and Ram Chandra when they tried to pick-up unconscious Mathura to take him inside the house. I am, therefore, of the opinion that prosecution, has succeeded in proving that in furtherance of the common intention of Ghasi and Kalu a forceful blow with stick was given by Kalu on the head of deceased Mathura on account of which be died. Doctor Bagdi PW 7 has clearly stated in his statement that when the patient was brought to the Hospital he was unconscious. His general condition was poor. He has farther stated that the injury caused to deceased Mathura on head was sufficient ft the ordinary course of nature to cause death. From the injury report of the deceased and from statement of the Doctor PW 7 Doctor Bagdi it can be said that the injury was caused to the deceased very forcefully and the person who caused injury wanted to cause such an injury. It can, therefore, be said that accoused appellant Kalu wanted to cause such an injury as is likely to cause death. Therefore, accused-appellant Kalu has been rightly convicted Under Section 304, Part-I, IPC. Accused-appellant Kalu caused this injury deceased Mathura in furtherance of the common intention of accoused appellant Ghasi and therefore, accused-appellant Ghasi has been rightly convicted Under Section 304, IPC. It has also come on record from the evidence discussed above that the accused appellants caused simple injury to Gordhan and Ram Chandra and therefore, they have Men rightly convicted Under Section 323, IPC. The judgment of the trial court is in details in which the evidence has been fully discussed. I, therefore, do not want to burden this judgment any more.
10. In result, this appeal is dismissed. The accused-appellant are no bail and shall surrender to their bail bonds and undergo the remaining part of the imprisonment as awarded to them by the trial court.