The delay in filing the FIR and sending it to the Magistrate does not necessarily invalidate the prosecution case if satisfactorily explained. The natural conduct of witnesses should be considered in the context of the specific circumstances of the case.

S.K. Keshote, J.-Accused-appellants, three in number, under the Judgment and order dated 22-5-1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1995, State vs. Ram Dev & Ors. have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced each to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. five hundred, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months’ imprisonment. Having aggrieved of this Judgment and order, the accused appellants are before the Court by this appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., 1973.

2. On the oral report by one Kedar Lal son of Mathura Lal (PW-9), First Information Report has been chalked out against the accused-appellants and five others for the commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302, IPC and a Criminal Case No. 210/94 was registered at the Police Station, Lakheri, District Bundi on 26th of December, 1994 at 3.30 a.m.

3. After investigation in the matter police filed challan against the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC.

4. The learned concerned Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance in the matter as the case was triable exclusively by Sessions Judge, committed the same to the Sessions Court, Bundi from where it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi for trial.

5. Thelearned trial Court on 12th of June, 1995 framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC against the accused appellants. They denied the same and claimed trial.

6. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the prosecution, hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the appellants, under its Judgment and order, convicted and sentenced them as aforestated.

.7. Shri Vishal Bansal, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the accused appellants, raised the following contentions challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the Judgment and order of learned trial Court.

.(1) There is unexplained delay of more than thirty hours in filing of the FIR;

.(2) There is unexplained considerable delay in sending of FIR to the Magistrate;

.(3) There is tampering with or manipulation in the FIR. It is submitted that Kedar Lal (PW-9) stated that in the FIR last lines were added.

.(4) The investigation is wholly unfair. Carrying this contention, learned Counsel for the accused appellants submitted that Kedar Lal (PW-9) stated that the Police Officer took his signatures on blank papers. The FIR has been prepared in their own away by police.

.(5) The statements of witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded after considerable delay.

.(6) Unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses of Khana (PW-7) and Kedar Lal (PW-9) not to make an attempt to come to rescue of the deceased nor they stopped the accused taking the dead body of one of the deceased by accused to the pond renders whole of the prosecution story highly doubtful as well as their presence at the scene of incidence.

.(7) Theaccused have dragged one of the dead body and thrown it in the pond but blood trial was not found.

.(8) Statements of eve-witnesses do not find corroboration from the medical evidences.

.(9) The site plan of the incident prepared is also highly doubtful document.

.(10) Khana (PW-7) has stated that he sustained injuries in this incident but injury report was not produced.

.(11) Though independent witnesses were available but same were not examined by the prosecution.

.8. In. support of his contentions the learned Counsel tor the accused appellants placed reliance on the following decisions.

.(1) State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Singh, 2001 SCC (Cri) 439 : (2001 Cri LJ 1176)

.(2) AIR 1971 SC 1554 (Chanan Singh vs. State of Haryana)

.(3) AIR 1999 SC 537 : (1999 Cri LJ 467), Din Dayal vs. Raj Kumar.

.(4) 1984Raj Cri C 274, Jalal vs. The State of Rajashthan.

.(5) 1989 Supp SCC 21, Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab.

9. In contra, the learned Pub