The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of prompt lodging of FIR and the need for evidence to prove it as ante-timed or ante-dated.

JUDGMENT :

Pritinker Diwaker, J.

This appeal arises out of impugned judgment and order dated 29.4.1987 passed by VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No.384 of 1983, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. In the present case, name of the deceased is Ram Dayal and as per prosecution case, on 29.9.1983 at about 2:00 am (in the mid-night) he was killed by appellant Bhagwan Deen by causing him number of incised wounds by a Tabbal. Further case of the prosecution is that about 8-10 days prior to the incident, Nirmala Devi, wife of Bechey Lal (brother of the appellant) was teased by the deceased and at that time, the appellant made efforts to get the deceased, but he could not succeed. Getting the opportunity, on 29.9.1983, the appellant entered the house of the deceased and caused him several injuries by a Tabbal, when he was sleeping in his Varandah. After hearing the cries of the deceased, (PW-1) Ram Gopal (nephew of the deceased), (PW-2) Kishuna Devi (wife of the deceased) and (PW-3) Chhotey Lal reached to the place of occurrence and, in the natural moon light and in the light of torch, saw the appellant causing injuries to the deceased. When these eye-witnesses have challenged the appellant, he fled away from the spot. On the next morning, at 8:30 am, on the basis of written report Ex.Ka.1 lodged by (PW-1) Ram Gopal, FIR Ex.Ka.3 was registered against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.

3. Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted vide Ex. Ka.5 on 29.9.1983 and the body was sent for postmortem which was conducted on 30.9.1983 vide Ex. Ka.17 by (PW-7) Dr S N Srivastava.

As per Autopsy Surgeon, following four injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased:

"(1) Incised wound on face Rt side extending from 3 cm away and lateral from Rt Ear extending obliquely downward Right angle of mouth Rt side with clear margin and tapering end. Injury measures 5 cm x 1 1/2 cm x bone cut.

(2) Incised wound in the center of nose bridge extending upwards obliquely Rt side of forehead with clear margin measuring 2 1/2 cm x 3/4 cm x bone deep.

(3) Incised wound on face Lt side extending from tragus of Lt ear obliquely upwards to Rt side across the Rt eye and puncturing Lt eye ball center with margin and tapering end on Lt side, wound measuring 11 cm x 2 1/2 cm x bone cut.

(4) Incised wound on neck Rt side after root of neck placed horizontally and measuring 11 cm x 3 cm x bone and cavity deep 3 cm away tabere Rt collar bone with clear margins and tapering end and wound cut cervical vertebrae of Rt side. Wound is at root of neck and extending out surface and neck in front."

Cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries (Ante Mortem).

4. While framing charge, the trial Judge has framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.

5. So as to hold accused appellant guilty, prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Statement of accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr PC in which, he pleaded his innocence and false implication.

6. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial Judge has convicted the accused appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

7. Counsel for the appellant submits:-

(i) that the FIR is ante-timed and there is delay in lodging the same.

(ii) that three eye-witnesses, i.e. (PW-1) Ram Gopal, (PW-2) Kishuna Devi and (PW-3) Chotey Lal, are not reliable and trustworthy. It has been argued that there are material contradictions in their statements.

(iii) that the incident occurred in the mid-night and the witnesses were sleeping and, thus, question of seeing the incident by them does not arise at all.

(iv) that there was no sufficient source of light at the place of occurrence.

8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment and order, it has been argued by learned State Counsel:

(i) that th