The delay in recording witness statements and minor discrepancies in evidence do not necessarily undermine the credibility of the witnesses or the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT SUJOY PAUL, J. : – These appeals filed under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code take exception to the judgment dated 29-10-2011 passed in Sessions Case No. 151/2011 by learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal whereby both the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as under –

2. The prosecution story in short is that complainant Ahmed Hussain (PW-1) got an information from Raees (PW-2) on 9-12-2010 that his son Altaf @ Cheeku was assaulted by appellants Rinku @ Azharuddin and Ankur Rajak by means of swords. Altaf was taken to Katju Hospital in a 108 Ambulance. Upon receiving the said information, complainant Ahmed Hussain reached Katju Hospital where he received the information about the death of his son. He found various injuries on the person of Altaf. He received information upon inquiry that before the incident, appellants blamed Altaf regarding stealing some material of sister of Ankur Rajak. Thus, a quarrel took place between them and they were having enmity towards Altaf @ Cheeku.

3. As per the information given by Ahmed Hussain (PW-1), a report in Police Station-T.T. Nagar was registered at 44/2010 and thereafter FIR No. 1091/2010 under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code was registered. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the scene of crime and a spot map was prepared. The incriminating materials were collected from the place of incident. Statement of witnesses under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. The appellants were arrested and swords were recovered from them. The seized materials in sealed condition were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory – Sagar (FSL-Sagar). After the investigation, Challan was filed. Appellants abjured the guilt. Sister of Ankur Rajak i.e. Pooja (DW-1) entered the witness box as a solitary witness. The Court below framed four questions for its determination and thereafter recorded the statements of fifteen prosecution witnesses and one defence witness. After hearing the parties, the impugned judgment was passed and appellants were convicted and directed to undergo sentence as mentioned hereinabove.

Cr. A. No. 2750/2011 Contention of Appellant : 4. Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel or the appellant-Ankur submits that as per prosecution story, there is only one eye witness to the incident, i.e. Sheikh Raees (PW-2). Learned counsel for the appellant-Ankur submits that on the basis of information received, the prosecution prepared a site map (Ex.P-2). By taking this Court to the site map, it is submitted that Sheikh Raees (PW-2) has signed the site map in the capacity of a witness. However, a plain glance of site map shows that the position from where incident has been witnessed by Sheikh Raees (PW-2) is not shown in the site map. In other words, it is argued that site map does not throw any light regarding presence of Sheikh Raees (PW-2) at the scene of crime. Thus, his presence itself at the scene of crime is doubtful and it is difficult to believe that he was an eye-witness.

5. The incident had taken place on 9-12-2010 whereas FIR was belatedly recorded on 10-12-2010 at the instance of Ahmed Hussain (PW-1). The statement of Sheikh Raees (PW-2) was relied upon wherein he deposed that he on his own did not go to