Vipul M. Pancholi, J. – The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/convict under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Code’) challenging the order of conviction dated 20.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 21.04.2016 passed by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2015 arising out of Dumariya P.S. Case No. 05 of 2013 whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted both the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as the ‘I.P.C.’). Both the appellants were convicted with sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, they will undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. No separate sentence was passed for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of the I.P.C.

2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under: –

“The informant, Sita Ram Bhuiyan, submitted a written complaint on 19.01.2013 before the Police Station Officer of Dumaria Police Station, District-Gaya, in which it has been stated by the informant that on 18.01.2013 at about 08:00 p.m., he was at his house when Budhan Bhuiyan and Savitri Devi came out of their house and started abusing and intended to assault him. Thereafter, it is alleged that all the accused persons entered his house and finding informant’s mother alone, they assaulted her and killed her. When the informant came back with Chaukidaar, he found the dead body of his mother which was lying in the courtyard “Angan” of accused.”

2.1. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint given by the complainant Sita Ram Bhuiyan, a formal F.I.R. came to be registered on 19.01.2013 at about 16:30 hrs. against the four accused including the present appellants.

2.2. After the registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and also collected the documentary evidence and prepared the map. Prior to that, the Inquest Report was prepared and the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was also conducted. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against the present appellants before the concerned Magistrate Court. However, the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and, therefore, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the concerned Sessions Court, where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2015.

2.3. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses, whereas the defence had examined two witnesses. Documentary evidence was also produced by the prosecution. Further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was also recorded. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court passed the impugned order against which the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kumar Nikhil assisted by Mrs. Ghunghroo Anand for the appellants and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned Addl. P.P. for the Respondent-State.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant would mainly contend that there is a gross delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is submitted that the occurrence in question took place at about 08:00 p.m. on 18.01.2013. However, the written complaint was given by the informant on the next date i.e. on 19.01.2013 which was registered as F.I.R. at about 16:13 hrs. It is further submitted that the informant is not an eye-witness to the occurrence in question and though the prosecution had projected three witnesses as eye-witnesses, there are major contradictions in the deposition given by the said witnesses and, in fact, from the evidence led by the prosecution itself, it can be said that the said three witnesses are not the eye-witnesses. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not support the case of the eye-witnesses.