JUDGMENT :- These appeals are directed against the judgment dated March 24, 1993 passed by the High Court at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 3062/79 and Criminal Appeal No. 3247/79. Both the aforesaid appeals were preferred by the accused-appellants against their conviction and sentence passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Merrut in Sessions Trial No. 5/79 under Section 302 read with Sections 148 and 149 IPC and convicting the appellants for life imprisonment on the charge of murder and also convicting them under Section 148 IPC. The five appellants, namely, Trikha (A-1) his two sons, Sohanvir Pal (A-2) and Amar Pal (A-3) his brothers son. Krishana Pal(A-4) and Veerpal (A-5) also a relation to Trikha, were prosecuted under Section 302 read with sections 148 and 149 IPC for causing death of one Amar Pal on October 11, 1987 at about 12.30 P.M.

2. The prosecution case in short is that the family of the deceased Amar Pal and the family of Trikha had strained relations and there had been litigations between them. On October 11, 1978, when the deceased Amar Pal was suffering from headache he had been to the shop of Dr. Rajveer Singh (P.W.6). The said doctor after examining the deceased came out from the said shop, all the accused persons attacked him with knives and they inflicted sixteen injuries by knife on the deceased resulting his death on the spot P.W. 1 zile Singh, the uncle of deceased, who was informed about the said incident rushed to the place of occurrence and thereafter he made a statement which was scribed by his relation and the same was sent to the police station which was about nine miles from the place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was recorded at the police station at about 4.15 p.m. on the basis of fardbayan. It may be stated here that in the said F.I.R., the names of P.W.s. 2 and 3 were mentioned as eyewitness and the name of one Ranbir was also mentioned as an eyewitness but the name of P.W. 6 Dr. Rajveer Singh was not mentioned. On the basis of the said F.I.R. the police came to the place of occurrence and inquest of the dead body was made and the body of the deceased was sent for post-morterm examination. The doctor holding the post mortem examination has also been examined in the case.

3. Accepting that the prosecution case has been established beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted all the accused under Section 302 and Sections 148 and 149 I.P.C. and passed consequential sentence as indicated. The accused appellants thereafter preferred the aforesaid appeals before the Allahabad High Court which were dismissed by the Allahabad High Court by the impugned judgment dated March 24, 1983.

4. Mr. U. R. Lalit, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeals Nos. 443 and 444 of 1994 has submitted that in the instant case, the eyewitnesses had not been examined by the police immediately after the incident. On the contrary, there had been an inordinate delay which has not been explained by the prosecution. He has submitted that P.W. 2 Ram Saran and P.W. 3 Attar Singh were examined almost after three weeks and the other eyewitness namely P.W. 6 Dr. Rajveer Singh is examined almost after about 56 days of the date of occurrence. Mr. Lalit has submitted that in the instance case, there had been change of investigating officer, and P.W. 9 Atma Singh who investigated the case earlier was changed and Shri Prem Singh was given the charge of investigation of the case. It has come out in the evidence that Atma Singh handed over such charge of investigation to Shri Prem Singh only on October 26, 1979. Hence, there had been sufficient time for the said Investigation officer Attar Singh to examine the eyewitnesses. Mr. Lalit has submitted that it has also come out in evidence that the witnesses were available for examination and excepting in one case where the witness has stated that he was absent for about five six days, there is no material to support that