away from the police station late in the evening and it would have been difficult for the companyplainant living in rustic and backward area to rush to the police station immediately.
The facts of the case are as under 2.1 On 11th August, 1978, as Ram Vilas PW 1, and his brother Shiv Vilas were returning home after visiting the temple about half a kilometre away from the village, they were waylaid by the appellant Ram Naresh and his father Jagannath since expired .
Jagannath was carrying a companyntry made revolver whereas the appellant was armed with a single barrel shot gun.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby the appellant stands companyvicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.
The next morning Ram Vilas along with the injured Shiv Vilas went to Police Station, Makhi and a First Information Report was lodged for an offence punishale under Sections 307/34 IPC.
The appellant thereupon fired one shot at Ram Vilas which hit him on the head.
These submissions have been rejected by both the companyrts below.
On the companypletion of the investigation the accused were charged for the above offences.
Jaganath exhorted the appellant that as Shiv Vilas was always companying in their way he should be killed.
The firing also attracted P.Ws2 and 3 to the spot.
The trial companyrt and the High Court have relied on the evidence of Ram Vilas P.W. 1 and Lalu P.W. 3 as eye witnesses of the occurrence, Shiv Vilas, in the meanwhile, having been murdered in some other incident.
Before the trial companyrt as well the High Court, the primary argument made on behalf of the accused was that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR, that the evidence of the eye witnesses who were closely related to the injured was discrepant in material particulars, and that the medical evidence did number support the ocular evidence.
