( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the appellants challenging judgment dated 9. 11. 1998 passed by the 5th Additional session Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial no. 68/1986, whereby the appellants are convicted for commission of offence under Section 396 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000 each, in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

( 2 ) AS per prosecution story, on 10. 11. 1985 at about 8:00 a. m. Shivsingh and his son chhuttallu alias Rammohan were going to their field for sowing gram crop. Chhuttallu alias Rammohan had a gun in his hand. When they reached near the houses of kaptansingh and Chhutkansingh, the accused persons Brahamsingh, Govindsingh, ramrajsingh, Virendrasingh Indalsingh and Udaisingh surrounded them and snatched the gun from Chhuttallu alias rammohan, and accused Ramraj fired gun shot on Chhuttallu, which caused injuries in his stomach and back. At that time accused Govindsingh and Udaisingh had also fired gun shots at Shivsingh, who was standing on the platform of the house of chhutkansingh, Shivsingh fell down on the spot and died.

( 3 ) SAKET Suman who saw the incident went to the house of Chhutallu and narrated about the incident to his wife, who went on the spot to save her husband Chhutallu, but accused Ramraj fired at her, which caused injury to her thigh. At that time accused Brahamsingh, indalsingh and Virendrasingh having lathis in their hands had also caused injuries to Chhuttallu alias rammohan, due to which Chhuttallu died on the spot. Accused Ramrajsingh ran away from the spot with the gun of Chhuttallu and his cartridge belt. This incident was seen by Parwati (PW12) wife of deceased Chhutallu, Aruna Kumari (PW 8), ramswaroop (PW 9) and Kedarsingh (PW10 ).

( 4 ) REPORT of the said incident was lodged at 12. 00 noon by Parvati. On her complaint dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-18) was recorded by m. P. Singh Yadav, T. I. Umri (PW 17) and on the basis of Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P18) FIR was registered. The police after investigation filed challan against the accused for commission of offence under Section 396 of ipc and under Section 29-B of the Arms Act. The matter was committed to the Sessions court and the Sessions Court after recording of evidence and appreciating the same convicted the accused persons. Hence, this appeal.

( 5 ) THE first contention raised by Shri L. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellants is that the FIR in the present case is delayed. He further submitted that the prosecution has completely changed the scenario of the incident. According to him, Chhutallu, shivsingh and one Ramvir have committed murder of Kalyansingh. They have also committed murder of kaptansingh and therefore, the accused had snatched the gun from chhutallu and caused injuries to him and his father Shivsingh in their self-defence. It is further alleged that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident and fabricated the false story. He further submitted that compliance of Section 157, cr. PC is not made out. He further submitted that the interested witnesses are not examined by the prosecution and the witnesses, who have supported the story are interested witnesses.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has urged that as per prosecution story, brahamsingh, Indalsingh and Virendra singh had lathis in their hands caused injuries to the deceased by lathis, but as per the medical report there is no injury by lathi on the body of the deceased. He further submitted that as per prosecution story, Ramraj has caused firearm injuries in the stomach and back of the deceased Chhutallu, but the medical report shows that firearm injuries on the body of the deceased are on his face and not in the stomach or back. Thus, the said injuries are not medically corroborated, hence the Sessions Court has committed ah error in convicting the accused. He further submitted that there was no intention on the part of the accused