The prompt lodging of FIR and the impact of delay on the prosecution's case were central legal points established in the judgment.

( 1 ) APPELLANTS have been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 30-7-92 passed by First Additional sessions Judge, Sivpuri in Sessions trial No. 57/89. Against their conviction and sentence they have filed this appeal.

( 2 ) AS per prosecution story, on 24-12-88 the incident took place at about 11. 30 a. m. in the forest under Police Station subhashpura, district Shivpuri. The place of incident was 12 Kms. away from the police station. FIR of the incident was lodged by Rajaram (PW-1) on the same day at about 13. 45 p. m. As per the FIR, he had gone in the forest near Kataghat to cut some bushes. When he was cutting the bushes, he heard the cries. Somebody was weeping and shouting. He came towards cries near the passage and he saw that Ramswaroop Gujar, ramhet Gujar and Narayan Singh Gujar of his village armed with farsa, axe and ballam were assaulting Ramhet son of Mangal Singh by these weapons. After seeing them he raised voice that why he is being killed and went on the spot to save him. The appellants fled away towards Godhar hill. He went near the person- He was injured having injuries on his head, neck, temporal region, jaw, hips, back side and also on the legs. The blood was oozing. He was not alive. Adjoining to his body one cycle and can of milk were also lying. After seeing, he immediately ran towards the village to inform the incident to Jaswant, brother of the deceased, and Mangal Singh, father of the deceased. Thereafter, all the persons came on spot and he went to lodge the FIR. Crime was registered and matter was investigated. Deadbody was referred for post-mortem. Spot-map was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused persons were arrested, articles were seized, bloodstained soil and plain soil were also seized along with the clothes of the deceased and they were referred for chemical examination. After investigation prosecution filed chargesheet against the appellants before the Sessions court and against Ramhet before the juvenile Court as he was minor at the time of commission of crime.

( 3 ) AT the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and after considering the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid, against which they have preferred this appeal.

( 4 ) WE have heard Shri J. P. Gupta, learned senior counsel instructed by Miss alpana Khare, learned counsel for the appellants, and Shri C. S. Dixit, learned Public prosecutor, for the respondent-State, and perused the evidence on record.

( 5 ) SHRI J. P. Gupta, learned senior counsel vehemently argued and submitted that rajaram (PW-1), who is said to be the sole eye-witness in the case, Udaisingh (PW-3)and other witnesses of the incident mohkamsingh (PW-5) and Jaswant Singh (PW-9) are close relatives of the deceased. Their relations with the appellants are also highly inimical. They are having a long family enmity between them. It is alleged that co-accused Ramhet, who was tried before the Juvenile Court, who is the son of Antar singh, and these appellants, who are the close relatives of Antar Singh, have been falsely implicated in the case on the ground that Antar Singh has been convicted for the murder of one Angad Singh, who was the brother of Mangal Singh and later on this antar Singh has also been murdered by the members of complainant party, in which three witnesses of this case, namely, rajaram (PW-1), Mangal Singh (PW-2) and mohkam Singh (PW-5) are the accused persons. He has further submitted that in the background of these two reasons the evidence of all the witnesses are totally fabricated. Rajaram (PW-1) was not present on spot. He is a chance witness and the prosecution has failed to prove any genuine reason of his presence on the spot at the time of commission of crime. He has further argued that the incident took place on 24-12-88 and the FIR of the same was lodged at 13. 45 hours in the noon but the copy of the