Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.
(1) These two appeals arise out of the same judgment of Sh. G.S. Dhaka, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by which he found the appellants Amarjit Singh and Ajit Singh guilty of offences under Sections 302/307/34 Indian Penal Code convicted them and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 and also to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 307 Indian Penal Code The respondent in Cr. A. 17/82 Saudagar Singh who was prosecuted also for the same offences was acquitted The connected appeal No. 17/82 has, thereforee, been filed by the State of Delhi challenging the acquittal of Saudagar Singh.
(2) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 3rd January, 1980 at about 7-30 Pm Amarjit Singh and Ajit Singh, appellants were hurling abuses in front of House No. 17/14, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi, belonging to Public Witness -1 Inderjeet Singh. This was objected to by Inderjeet as a result of which the appellants Amarjit Singh and Ajit Singh felt humiliated and while leaving that place they are stated to have threatened him. Thereafter at about 8-15 Pm on the same day while Inderjit Public Witness 1 and his friend Kimti Lal, deceased were near Sanatan Dharam Mandir near Subhash Nagar and were on their way to the house of Kimti Lal the appellants Amarjit Singh and Ajit Singh armed with sword and knife respectively, suddenly appeared and, started abusing both of them. In the meanwhile Saudagar Singh, respondent in Cr. A. 17/82 who is the father of the aforesaid two appellants also appeared and exhorted that they be killed and he will take care of it. Immediately thereafter the appellants Amarjit Singh and Ajit Singh started assaulting with sword and knife Kimti Lal. The role attributed to Saudagar Singh is that he kept hold of deceased Kimti Lal who fell on spot after receiving the injuries. It is further stated that Public Witness 1 Inderjeet tried to run away from the scene but he was caught by Saudagar Singh from his back side by putting arms around his body and Ajit Singh inflicted knife blows on his abdomen and the upper part of his left thigh. Amarjit Singh inflicted Kirpan blow on the left side and also on his head. Public Witness -1 Inderjit Singh fell down and accused took to their heels.
(3) The matter seems to have been reported to police control room by Public Witness -4 Vinod Kumar who was informed by some boy and the message was transmitted by him on telephone about a quarrel taking place at the scene of occurrence. This brought Public Witness 17 Joginder Singh on the scene and after reaching there he removed the deceased Kimti Lal as also Inderjit to the hospital where he recorded the statement of Inderjit Public Witness 1 which is marked as Ex. Public Witness 1/A, on the basis of which an Fir came to be registered. Soon after the injured were taken to the Willingdon hospital Kimti Lal deceased was declared as brought dead while ; the injuries sustained by Public Witness Inderjit were declared to be dangerous vide Mlc prepared by the doctor and, he was referred to the surgical department. It is further stated that while the accused escaped from the scene they took with them the sword and knife but the cover of the sword fell on spot which was taken into possession by the police along with a pair of chappal, blood and blood stained earth. Clothes of deceased and that of injured Inderjit were also taken into possession. On the same night the house of the accused persons was raided where their blood stained pajamas and one blood stained white cover of a quilt were recovered from abucket. All the three accused persons were apprehended on 11-1-80. In pursuance of a disclosure statement made by Ajit Singh on 13-1-80 the knife alleged to be the weapon of offence was recovered beneath the culvert near railway crossing Mangolpuri at the instance of Ajit Singh. Saudagar Singh got recovered sword from the Malba lying in Bariwala near Hari Nagar. The post mortem of the dead body of Kimti Lal was conducted and on the completion of the necessary stops in the direction of investigating the accused were put on trial.
(4) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The fact that the deceased Kimti Lal died as a result of the injuries which were discovered on post mortem and the cause of death is not in dispute. This is also not in dispute that Public Witness -1 Inderjit had sustained dangerous injuries. The prosecution has in fact listed three witnesses Inderjit Public Witness 1, Public Witness 3 Bhagwant Singh and Public Witness 6 Baldev Raj as the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Both Public Witness 3 Bhagwant Singh and Public Witness 6 Baldev Raj were in fact named by Inderjit Public Witness 1 in his statement Ex. Public Witness 1/A which forms the basis for the first information report. There is hardly, thereforee, any need for us to make reference to their entire evidence of which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken a detailed notice in his judgment. The controversy in this case is within a very narrow compass and, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the testimony of Inderjit Public Witness 1 and that of Baldev Raj Public Witness 6 inspires sufficient confidence and can be relied upon. Bhagwant Singh Public Witness 3 has turned hostile. In fact, the main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants Amarjit Singh and Ajit Singh was that Inderjit at that point of lime was not capable of making that statement and that this Fir has come into existence long after the incident as a result of deliberations and the accused persons have been involved because of their political rivalry.
(5) It is, thereforee, necessary at this stage to take notice of the defense set up by the accused. The accused have taken a stand that it was an election day and Kimti Lal, deceased was an office bearer of the Congress party and, Inderjit also belonged to the same party while; the appellants' household was affiliated to Janta Party. That in the hope that they are going to win the elections Kimti Lal along with some persons came to the house of Saudagar Singh where he is running a fair price shop and asked for 10 kgs. of sugar which he refused and that Kimti Lal and his companions assaulted him ; that his two sons Ajit Singh and Amarjit Singh intervened and they were also injured ; that on the intervention they went inside their house but, after some time they heard that their party colleagues who had heard about the incident were annoyed and there was a fight between the two groups belonging to two different political parties as a result of which incident took place.
(6) The first limb of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that admittedly Inderjit Public Witness 1 was on friendly terms with one of the brothers of the accused namely, Manjit and there was no occasion for them with such type of relationship to cause any harm to Inderjit much less to Kimti Lal with whom they were not concerned at all. In short the contention raised in that there is no motive for the commission of this crime and none has been brought on record. We must at once brush aside this contention for the simple reason that, the presence and proof of motive by itself is no evidence of the commission of the offence, nor can the absence of motive in the presence of direct evidence involving the accused persons with the commission of the offence be any reason to brush aside the direct evidence. In fact it can never be said that the murders are committed always for motives. In a case where direct evidence involving the accused with the commission of crime is available and is credit worthy there is no question of going into the detail that the motive for the commission of crime is absent. Presence of motive may be an additional factor which the court can take into consideration i.f otherwise the case is proved by evidence direct or circumstantial. We, thereforee, find no force in this limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants.
(7) We, however, agree with the learned counsel that it cannot be safely said that the knife and the sword recovered at the instance of Amarjit Singh and Saudagar Singh cannot be connected with the commission of this offence, as otherwise the serological examination of these weapons does not indicate the presence of blood. We believe it could not also be possible for witnesses to identify these as the incident has taken place in the dark hours of the night, but that by itself is not sufficient ground for the conclusion that, the accused are not connected with the commission of crime. The fact of the matter is that the accused have used sharp edged weapons for the commission of this crime which is sufficiently indicated by the nature and number of injuries sustained by the victims.
(8) Now the major plan of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the statement Ex. Public Witness 1/A attributed to Inderjit Singh on the basis of which Fir was registered was not in existence and that Fir was registered, not at a time, as the prosecution wants the court to believe but that, it was actually registered in the morning hours of the next day. In this regard reliance is placed on the fact that the Fir has admittedly reached the magistrate at 10 Am on the morning of 4th January, 1980. It is further contended that considering the dangerous injuries and the report of the radiologist about the injuries it must be assumed that Inderjeet was not in a fit state to make a statement. And, once it is shown that the sending of Fir was delayed and it was not in existence, the court must conclude that the whole case is fabricated one.
(9) We do not agree in the contentions. In the first place we want to make it clear that the simple fact that, Fir has reached the magistrate not immediately after its registration, but at 10 O'Clock on the next morning by itself is not fatal. There may be many reasons about Fir having reached late to the magistrate. What is essential is that it has to be shown that this delay in the sending of the Fir was the result of a deliberate design to fabricate a case and that it was registered late because the facts were not known.
(10) Having said so we may proceed to examine the contention that Inderjeet Public Witness -1 was not in a fit sate to make this statement as the first argument is clearly connected with it. If it is found that Inderjeet really was not in a fit state to make the statement then the court will be justified in concluding that the Fir was delayed for some reasons which have not been disclosed by the prosecution. The learned defense counsel has submitted that a perusal of Mlc would show that there were three different endorsement by three different doctors and one of them has opined that Inderjeet was fit to make a statement. They have urged that this particular certificate has not been proved and the only reason why it has not been proved according to them is that this is a fake certificate. We have perused the record and we find that this really has not been proved. But that fact by itself does not show that it is a fabricated certificate nor does the absence of proof of this certificate lead to the conclusion that Inderjeet Public Witness -1 was not fit to make a statement. We have perused the testimony of Inderjeet, Public Witness -1 and he has in unequivocal terms emphatically owned this statement. He has himself said that when he received the stab injuries on the scene of occurrence be fell down unconscious and he regained consciousness when he reached the hospital. Is any other proof if any, required to show that Inderjeet was conscious when he reached the hospital and when he made the statement. Apart from this, the Mlc of Inderjeet, Ex. Public Witness 20/C would show that the doctor who has examined him has right in the beginning recorded that the patient is conscious. This should in fact clinch the issue. We are, however, told by the learned counsel for the appellants that during the course of the trial they have got the signatures of Inderjit Public Witness -1 examined by Dw Hardayal Singh pental and expert of documents who has given an opinion that the signatures on the statement Ex. Public Witness 1/A is not that of Inderjit. This to us appears to be a development which in the presence of the person who made this statement should not cause any anxiety. This is a case where Inderjit Public Witness -1 himself has come into the witness box and owned every thing. If he had died this argument could be treated to be one as having some relevance. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that no undue importance needs to be given to this objection. Inderjit Public Witness -1 has survived, may be he had a providential escape. The police in this case could have otherwise recorded an Fir on their own if no facts were known and since Inderjit has survived his statement could be recorded thereafter and, the result in that case would not have been different. We fail to understand why should the police have fabricated it. We see no reason for the police to involve the accused if they were not the real culprits. There is no evidence on record that any surgery was performed on Inderjit. Assuming that it was performed there is absolutely no escape from the conclusion that at the time when his statement was recorded he was conscious. We have taken notice of the fact that Inderjit Public Witness 1 was otherwise on friendly terms with one of the brothers of Amarjit and Ajit Singh, appellants. It is difficult for us to believe that he would unnecessarily involve the family of a friend in this sordid affair. This friendship is admitted by both the parties. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there was neither any occasion nor any need to fabricate the FIR. In any case in view of the testimony of Inderjit, at trial, admitting this statement the controversy does not survive. If Inderjit says that he made the statement, that would be the end of the read for the accused. Since Inderjit himself has admitted that, he made the statement and was conscious it would have only amounted to duplication of evidence to prove the certificate about his being fit.
(11) Next it is urged that within minutes of the occurrence the Sho himself went to the hospital and, when he was asked as to whether he had seen the statement the answer given by him is 'No' This is to our mind, does not help the appellants at all. In the first place, ought we to know where does he say that the statement was not in existence? All he has said is that he did not see it. That appears to be correct as, the statement had gone to the police station. . In the second place we have taken notice of the question asked, and. we find it assumes the existence of this statement. It would be noticed that after competing the formalities at the police station and at the hospital the investigating officer on the same night raids the house of the accused persons who were not found to be there and seizes certain clothes which he suspected to be that of the culprits stained with blood. This would show that the names of the accused persons were known to the investigating officer immediately after occurrence, even though none of the eye witnesses had not them till then. That would go to indicate that, the only source of information in this respect was Inderjit, Public Witness 1. In the light of these facts we do not find any sufficient force in the argument that the substance of the information is not mentioned in the daily diary. In fact the whole argument is based on the assumption that the crime came to be committed in a factional fight between two rival political groups and that the assailants were not known at that time. In view of the direct and reliable evidence of Inderjit Public Witness 1 and Baldev Raj Public Witness 6 such assumptions have no basis. To reiterate we may observe that, under the circumstances, the simple fact that the Fir has actually reached the magistrate at 10 Am on the next morning by itself does not belie the prosecution story unless something more is shown, that it was deliberately and designedly delayed with a view to fabricate the FIR. Here we are faced with a case where none of these contentions can assume any importance, for the reason that, the person on the basis of whose statement it is recorded has fortunately survived and, he has admitted having made the statement. He perhaps, would be the last person to screen the real culprits. Why then, if we may so ask, should the police have recorded the Fir, late Under the circumstances of this case it can, thereforee, hardly be urged that the delay in sending the Fir to magistrate is fatal. Both Inderjit Public Witness 1 and Baldev Raj Public Witness 6 have sufficiently supported the prosecution case.
(12) It would be noticed that one of them Inderjit was himself dangerously injured in this incident. Very convincing grounds would be required to discard the evidence of a victim who had sustained dangerous stab injuries and had a providential escape from death. The injuries on the person of Inderjit would at least fetch a reasonable inference about his presence and we have seen that the only requirement that. the injuries were sustained by him in this occurrence has been substantially fulfillled. Here in this case the duration of the injuries, the medical testimony and the support being provided by Baldev Raj Public Witness 6 and the fact that the site of occurrence is the same, all go to show that each piece of evidence is consistent with the prosecution story and the facts highlighted by Inderjit. Under these circumstances we find the entire evidence is most reliable.
(13) It is next argued that Public Witness 6 Baldev Raj inspire of saying that he is more than a brother to Inderjit does not inform the father of the injured, even though he was asked to do so and, does not accompany him to the hospital are matters which the court should consider in not relying upon his evidence as that, would go to show that he was not present. We do not find any reason to accept this proposition. It will be seen that within minutes of the occurrence Joginder Singh, S.I. reaches on the scene of occurrence but he does not find any of the eye witnesses there. He was there hardly for 2 to 3 minutes as his first task was to remove the injured to the hospital and not to go in search of the eye witnesses. That would have been an indiscreet act on his part. More so, the very feet that Baldev Raj was not there would go to show that he had gone to inform. It is, however, argued that the father was not seen anywhere around the hospital which goes to show that he was not informed. We do not think we can attach too much importance to such propositions. Police agency is-a mobile agency and have all the facilities for mobility at their command. It must have taken very little time for them to reach on spot and the victims to the hospital. Within an hour or so they are back from the hospital after handing over the victims to the hospital staff One does not know whether Inderjit's father was in his house and, even if he was in his house, whether he had the informations to where the victims had been taken. Then again it would always take him some time to reach to the place where the victims had been removed, immediately. It was also urged before us that Public Witness 26 Hira Lal has denied about the statement of Inderjit having been written. We have been shown a few sentence in his statement appearing on page 78 of the paper book which are as under :-
'It is incorrect that when I reached the hospital there S.I. Joginder had already recorded i.e. the statement of Inderjit Ex. Public Witness 1/A. It is also incorrect that since no statement had been recorded, thereforee, no Fir could be brought into existence and it was only on the next day that the statement purporting to be signed by Inderjit was brought into existence.'
(14) Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the first sentence. We find that it is being wrongly interpreted. In fact, after the words, it is incorrect, there should be a coma. which does not appear in the paper/book. The subsequent lines which we have reproduced above in the same statement would clearly go to indicate that, the witness has categorically stated that the statement was in existence when he had gone to the hospital. If it were not so, be should have been declared hostile.
(15) The next argument that has been advanced is that in this case admittedly it was Jawahar Singh who has been writing Zamins and other papers and not the I.O. but that Jawahar Singh has not been examined. We attach no importance to it in the light of the fact that, the investigating Officer has clearly stated that. whatever was written by Jawahar Singh it was done at his instance.
(16) On the basis of the observations made above we are of the view that the prosecution has clearly proved this case and the eye witness account is not only reliable but is absolutely trust worthy.
(17) As far as the case of Saudagar Singh is concerned we find the only role assigned to him is that he had given exhortations to kill, and that he had caught hold of Inderjit Public Witness 1 by putting his arms around him. Barring the testimony of Inderjit Public Witness 1 there is no evidence about Saudagar Singh having given any exhortation. We also do not think that, it was possible for Saudagar Singh to put his arms around Inderjit as in that case it may not have been possible for the appellants Amarjit and Ajit to inflict injuries on the person of Inderjit. To that extent we feel that Inderjit has exaggerated. Even if Saudagar's presence on the scene of occurrence is assumed to be true, we see that he was not armed and it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that he had any knowledge that his sons would resort to this lawlessness. We are, thereforee, of the view that both the appeals fail. The appeal preferred by Amarjit and Ajit registered as Cr. Appeal No. 205/81 as such is dismissed and we confirm the conviction and sentence awarded to them by the learned additional Sessions Judge. We also dismiss Cr. Appeal No. 17/82 as we find no merit in it.