11. Witnesses Munnalal (PW/1), Machal Singh (PW/2), Kamlesh (PW/3), Bablu (PW/5), Devendra (PW-6), Harnam Singh (PW/7) and Khachora (PW/13) were examined as eye-witnesses but Khachora (PW/13) has not stated anything regarding the injuries caused to the deceased Ramsingh. Bablu (PW/5) deposed that 10 months ago at about 7:00 AM he alongwith his cattle was going to the forest. When he reached near Puliya, accused Raghunath was sitting in his bullock-cart. The accused persons Balram Singh, Shankar Singh and Imrat Singh were also standing there. As soon as his cattle passed from Puliya, Ox of Raghunath brayed, due to which Raghunath abused him and inflicted a blow of axe on his head. Thereafter, Balram Singh, Imrat Singh and Shankar Singh also beat him by Axe, Lathi and Luhangi. At that time, his younger brother Devendra was also alongwith him. His father Ramsingh was following him, who asked the accused persons that why they are beating his son then Raghunath Singh gave a blow of Kharerua on the head of Ramsingh, as a result of which, he fell down on the ground, at the same time, Balram Singh gave a blow of axe on the head of Ramsingh. Imrat Singh gave a blow of Lathi on the right hand of Ramsingh and Shankar Singh also gave a blow of Luhangi on the backside of head of Ramsingh due to which he sustained injury. After receiving the information regarding the incident, his brother Harnam Singh also reached on the spot then Imrat Singh gave a Lathi blow on his head and right hand’s fingers. Hearing the sound of the quarrel, as soon as his brother Munnalal came to the spot, Shankar Singh inflicted Luhangi blow on the right leg of Munnalal.

12. Kamlesh (PW/3) and Devendra Singh (PW/6) supported the statement of Bablu (PW/5), who is the injured person and presence of Kamlesh (PW/3) and Devendra (PW/6) is mentioned in the FIR, therefore, their presence on the spot cannot be disbelieved. According to Bablu, Harnam and Munnalal reached on the spot later on. Harnam Singh (PW/7) has also stated in his examination that after receiving the information that accused persons are beating Bablu and Ramsingh, he reached on the spot. He admitted in para 2 of the cross-examination that when he reached on the spot, the incident had taken place and the accused persons have already fled away from the spot thus it is clear that Harnam Singh was not present at the time of the incident. Munnalal (PW/1) has also admitted in para 13 of the cross-examination that he did not see that who has caused injury to Ramsingh because he had run away from the spot.

13. Although Kamlesh (PW/3), Bablu (PW/5), Devendra (PW/6) and Harnam Singh (PW/7) stated that the accused Raghunath gave a blow of Kharerua on the head of the deceased Ramsingh but this statement of these witness cannot be accepted because it did not mention in the F.I.R. or in the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that Raghunath has caused any injury to the deceased. As per the post-mortem report, only one injury was found on the head of the deceased and according to FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses, this injury has caused by accused Balram Singh giving axe blow on the head of the deceased Ramsingh.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that there is a contradiction between the statements of eye-witnesses Kamlesh (PW/3), Bablu PW/5 and Devendra (PW/6) that whether various blows were given to the deceased Ramsingh by accused Raghunath Singh, Balram Singh, Imrat Singh and Shankarlal when he fell down on the ground or those blows were given when he was standing. However, such minute details cannot be expected from the witnesses. There is a consistency in the evidence of all the above witnesses about the assault done by the appellant Balram Singh. It is clear that only one blow was given by the appellant Balram Singh on the head of the deceased Ramsingh. If such blows were given by the appellant/accused Raghunath Singh and Imrat Singh then such blows were corroborated with the post-mortem report. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased Ramsingh had received only one wound on his left frontal parietal region and there is no allegation in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the witnesses that the appellant Raghunath or Shankar lal had given any blow by any weapon to the deceased Ramsingh.

15. The FIR was lodged after seven hours and 45 minutes of the incident whereas the spot was 25 Kilometers away from the Police Station and the complainant Harnam and his brother, who were also injured in the incident, had to arrange for transportation etc. so that the deceased Ramsingh whose condition was not good, could be taken to the Police Station and the Hospital. In these circumstances, the FIR was lodged within a reasonable period.