D. C. GHEEWALA, M. K. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE incident happened on 9th June 1978 near the Naka of Navgadhia Sheri in Golvad at Surat wherein one person namely deceased Kanchanlal alias Ichchhu Bhagwandas lost his life and two persons namely complainant Mohanlal Bhagwandas who is the brother of the deceased and witness Jashwant Hiralal who is the cousin of the deceased received injuries by means of a sharp cutting instrument. ( 2 ) THE person who is alleged to have caused the death of the deceased and inflicted those injuries on the two injured witnesses a young man aged 21 years of age named Ashok Atmaram Rana was put up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Surat in sessions case No. 189 of 1978 and he has been convicted of the offences under secs. 302 326 and 324 I. P. C. and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life R. I. for two years and R. I. for six months for the aforesaid offences respectively with a direction that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. He was however acquitted for the offence under sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act for which also he was tried. ( 3 ) MR. Chinoy formulates his submissions as under :1 Two of the three eye withesses are related to the deceased one being his brother the other being his cousin and the third witness is the neighbour of the deceased and as is the case of the defence all these eye witnesses including the neighbour beloaged to the gang of Hiralal who was a bootlegger and who suspacted the accused being a police informant with regard to the illegal activities of this gang. In this state of the evidence unless there is independent corroboration to the testimony of these witness no reliance could be placed on their evidence and the learned Judge was therefore in error in recording a finding of guilty against the accused mainly relying on the evidence of these three eye witnesses. 2 This was either a case of mistaken identity which is likely to occur because at the place of the incident which had happened at about 9. 45 p. m. there was practically no light; and in the alternative the complainant and others who were on inimical terms with the accused have falsely implicated the accused in this offence. 2 This was either a case of mistaken identity which is likely to occur because at the place of the incident which had happened at about 9. 45 p. m. there was practically no light; and in the alternative the complainant and others who were on inimical terms with the accused have falsely implicated the accused in this offence. 3 The learned Additional Sessions Judge committed a grave error in relying on the evidence of P. I. Wagela inspite of the fact that the panchas had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. 4 The prosecution witnesses have failed to explain the injuries on the accused and therefore the prosecution case should not have been believed. 5 The learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an error in admitting the statement of complainant Mohanlal recorded by the police at Maskati Hospital as an F. I. R. because earlier to this point of time P. I Waghela had already received information about a cognizable offence having been committed at the scene of the incident and that should have been reduced into writing and treated as F. I. R. 6 The prosecution has failed to establish that the motive for the crime was as alleged by them viz. the previous incident about whistling by the accuseds sister Madhu and that therefore the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt their case. ( 4 ) NOW taking up the last point first it is a settled position that in a case of eye witnesses motive becomes insignificant. If the evidence of the eye witnesses inspires confidence and the court feels inclined to accept the same and act upon it then the evidence with regard to the motive loses significance. It is true in the instant case there are some conflicting versions with regard to the previous incident given out by the prosecution witnesses and the motive as initially alleged by the prosecution has not been proved. But that in our opinion is not sufficient to justify a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt its case. ( 5 ) THEN taking up the first point it is true Mohanlal is the brother of the deceased and Jashwant is his cousin. But this does not mean that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated by some independent evidence. ( 5 ) THEN taking up the first point it is true Mohanlal is the brother of the deceased and Jashwant is his cousin. But this does not mean that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated by some independent evidence. The relevant question is as to whether the evidence given by these witnesses is cogent and reliable and whether it inspires confidence in the mind of the court and is sufficient to act on the same. On going through the evidence of these witnesses we find that so far as their evidence with regard to the main question viz. the attack by means of a knife by the accused on the deceased as also on these witnesses is concerned their evidence has remained unshaken in cross examination. There is also corroboration to their evidence from the medical evidence which does show that as deposed to by these witnesses there were injuries on the deceased and on these two witnesses which could be caused by a sharp cutting instrument like a knife and the seat of the injuries as disclosed by medical evidence supports them. So far as the third witness Manilal is concerned apart from a vague suggestion that he belonged to the gang of Hiralal the complainant deceased and others and that they were engaged in bootlegging there is no material on record to justify any such conclusion Manilal is a neighbor but by virtue of the fact that the deceased and the accused are neighbors of each other Manilal would be the neighbor of both. He is an independent witness and there is no reason to doubt his testimony. The learned Judge has been impressed by his testimony. He had the advantage of marking the demeanour of this witness and we have no reason to take a different view of the assessment of the evidence of this witness. We find that his evidence is trustworthy and reliable. The real test in such cases is as to whether the evidence of witnesses though they may be relatives on a close scrutiny and check stands the test of truth. We find that his evidence is trustworthy and reliable. The real test in such cases is as to whether the evidence of witnesses though they may be relatives on a close scrutiny and check stands the test of truth. If the court is satisfied that what has been stated by a witness is true version of what happened at the time of the incident then the court may act on the same and base conviction solely on the evidence of witnesses who being relatives are in a sense interested witnesses. But as observed by the Supreme Court in Narayan Nathu Naik v. State of Maharashtra A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 1656 what is to be seen is whether they are not interested enough to let the real assailant escape and charge some one else. One of the relevant circumstances is this connection would be as to whether the report of the ease was made almost immediately as was done in the instant ease and whether there was time available to the prosecution witnesses to concoct a false case against the accused. ( 6 ) MR. Chinoy while dealing with the evidence of complainant Mohanlal vehemently relied on the certificate ex. 16 issued by witness Mr. Patel ex. 15 and his evidence. As ex. 16 the certificate issued by Dr. Patel shows there was history of assault by a knife by somebody near Navapura 20 minutes before the patient that is the complainant was examined by the doctor. The doctor also in his evidence stated in cross examination that the complainant has not come with a police yadi though he was accompanied by some persons and that the history which the patient gave was written down by him in the certificate and the patient did not tell him anything more than what was stated in his certificate. Mr. The doctor also in his evidence stated in cross examination that the complainant has not come with a police yadi though he was accompanied by some persons and that the history which the patient gave was written down by him in the certificate and the patient did not tell him anything more than what was stated in his certificate. Mr. Chinoy on the basis on this evidence and the certificate issued by the doctor urges that at the time when the complainant was treated by the doctor that is with in 20 minutes of the occurrence he did not know who was the assailant and that is why while giving the history he stated that there was an assault on him by a knife by somebody and later when the police arrived on the scene and after there was consultation with the persons who had accompanied the complainant to the hospital That is Jashwant and Dayaram a conspiracy was hatched to involve the accused in this case because the identity of the real culprit was unknown and hence at the earlier stage it was stated to the doctor that somebody had assaulted the patient with a knife. In this view of the matter submits Mr. Chinoy the F. I. R. given afterwards will have no meaning and the bottom of the prosecution case that it was the accused who mounted the said assault on the decea- sed and the injured witnesses is knocked down by this vital infirmity in the prosecution case. ( 7 ) WE are unable to persuade ourselves to accept this submission of Mr. Chinoy. It has to be borne in mind that when a person in the predicament of the complainant who had received a very serious injury as the doctor says which was in the nature of an incised wound 1 1/2 x 1/2 intra abdomen deep with omentum coming out of the wound in the left hypochondryl region parallel to the left coastal margin he would he in terrible pain and his only anxiety and the first concern of the doctor would be to see that his life is saved and proper treatment is given without any delay. In such a ease the patient does not give a detailed history as to how the attack was made on him who was his assailant and how many blows were dealt on him and whether anybody else was also injured during the course of the incident. He would only make a general statement as it appears to have been made in the instant case to the effect that he had been assaulted by means of a knife over a particular part about 20 minutes before he was brought before the doctor and the doctor it appears while taking down the history recorded it as an assault with a knife by some body because the name of the assailant had not been stated to him by the injured. This therefore cannot lead to an inference as Mr. Chinoy wants as to draw to the effect that some unknown person not known to the complainant had assaulted the deceased the complainant and injured Jashwant by a knife. Again it would be pertinent to note that the accused the complainant and the injured witness are not strangers but they are known to one another for a long time. There is therefore no likelihood of any mistaken identity about the assailant. The F. I. R. has been given in a short time within 25 minutes of the occurrence and in the F. I. R. in clear terms the name of the accused has been stated as the assailant of the deceased and the complainant. It would be impossible to believe that the complainant would involve an innocent person allowing the real culprit to go scot free in a case of such nature in which the assailant has caused serious injuries to the complainant as also injuries to the deceased who later succumbed to his injuries and died. The fact of the complainants relationship with the deceased would rather add to the value of his evidence because he would be interested to get the real culprit rather than an innocent person punished (vide Angnoo and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 296 ). We therefore do not find any merit in the first three points of Mr. Chinoy with regard to the evidence of the eye witnesses question of mistaken identity and the accused having been deliberately involved in the case on account of previous enmity. We therefore do not find any merit in the first three points of Mr. Chinoy with regard to the evidence of the eye witnesses question of mistaken identity and the accused having been deliberately involved in the case on account of previous enmity. We may also state at this stage that so far as Manilal is concerned his evidence strikes as evidence of an independent truthworthy and reliable witness and his evidence cannot be attacked on any count. A mere suggestion that he belonged to the gang of Hiralal the deceased and the complainant engaged in alleged boot legging activities by the defence does not affect the evidence of this witness. ( 8 ) WE may also while on the evidence of eye witnesses and on the defence suggestion about mistaken identity or deliberate false accusation against the accused state that no questions at all were put to the witnesses suggesting that because of darkness at the time of the incident it was not possible to see the assailant. As the evidence shoes as is borne out by the map ex. 11 there was an electric pole just near the place of the occurrence and therefore even though the shops and other places near the place of the incident may be closed there will be some light on the road which would be sufficient for personal like the complainant and the injured who were already known to the accused to identify the assailant. ( 9 ) THAT will take us to the next point of Mr. Chinoy viz. that the evidence of P. I. Waghela being the evidence of a partisan or interested witness like an investigating officer should not be relied upon unless it is corroborated by an idenpendent reliable evidence. As observed by the Supreme Court in Nathusingh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1974) 3 S. C. C. 584 the more fact that the witness is a police officer is not enough to discard his evidence when no reason was shown for his hostility to the accused. Thus there is no rule that police officers evidence must be corroborated. If the evidence taken by itself inspires confidence and strikes the court as evidence which can be relied upon then the court may act on such evidence even in the absence of corroboration. Thus there is no rule that police officers evidence must be corroborated. If the evidence taken by itself inspires confidence and strikes the court as evidence which can be relied upon then the court may act on such evidence even in the absence of corroboration. In the instant case however the evidence of P. I. Waghela is corroborated by documentary evidence. His evidence regarding the conduct of the accused immediately after the incident and his concealing himself below the roof and his having been arrested in that position as also the blood stained clothes having been found on his person at the time of his arrest the blood on which clothes belonged to the same group to which group the blood of the deceased belonged and to which group also belonged the blood of the complainant the find of bloodstained knife at the instance of the accused who voluntarily produced the same from a place where it was concealed in his house is corroborated firstly by the panchnama which is brought on record at the instance of the accused at the appellate stage and which is at ex. 33. It is also corroborated by the report of the Assistant Director Forensic Science Laboratory and Assistant Chemical Analyser to the Government of Gujarat at Ex. 10. His evidence therefore was rightly accepted by the learned Judge and we have therefore no hesitation in accepting the same. But apart from it we may state while on this subject that even if the evidence of this witness including the documents referred to is excluded there is sufficient evidence viz the evidence of the eye witnesses corroborated by medical evidence on record which leaves no doubt in our mind that it was the accused who committed the crimes for which he is convicted. ( 10 ) COMING to the next point it was urged by Mr. Chinoy that in the instant case as is now evident from the panchnama Ex. 33 the accused had atleast three injuries one on the head which was bleeding and injuries on both the knees and both the hands. It is true none of the prosecution witnesses referred to these injuries. But it may also be mentioned here that there is no material on report to come to the conclusion as suggested by Mr. Chinoy that these injuries were caused during the course of the same incident. It is true none of the prosecution witnesses referred to these injuries. But it may also be mentioned here that there is no material on report to come to the conclusion as suggested by Mr. Chinoy that these injuries were caused during the course of the same incident. Unless there is evidence on record with regard to the exact nature and extent of these injuries the instrument with which they could have been caused the age of the injuries and the circumstances in which they were caused it would be difficult if not impossible to come to a definite conclusion that these were the injuries sustained by the accused during the course of this incident and that they were caused by any one from amongst the deceased and the two of the injured witnesses. Again in order to succeed on the question of self defence it will have to be shown that these injuries were justified and were caused in exercise of the right of self defence. There is no such case put up by the defence and there is no other material on record which would enable this court to come to any such conclusion As observed by this court in the State v. Koli Hira Bhaga and others A. I. R. 1961 Guj. 8 (1 G. L. R. 157)"in a criminal case if the prosecution adduces reliable evidence for proving all the ingredients of the charges against the accused persons the prosecution is entitled to succeed unless the accused relies on any general or Special exception in which case the burden is on the accused to prove the exception. In a case where the accused is said to have attacked the complainant or members of the complainants party it is sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the accused had attacked the members of the complainants party with the requisite intention. If the accused had sustained injuries the prosecution on must place the fact that the accused had injuries before the court but it is not necessary for the precaution to congently explain how the accused sustained injuries. If the accused had sustained injuries the prosecution on must place the fact that the accused had injuries before the court but it is not necessary for the precaution to congently explain how the accused sustained injuries. Even on the basis Bat the injuries on the accused must have been caused by the deceased the prosecution may be entitled to succeed if it satisfactorily proves that the alleged criminal acts and criminal intention on the part of the accused and if the alleged right of private defence is not proved. But it is open to the defence to put questions to the prosecution witnesses in cross examination. The defence can use such answers given in the cross examination in order to discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses". NOW in the instant case it would be clear that no such questions or general exception were relied upon by the accused and it may also be noted that there is nothing to show that the injuries on the accused were serious injuries. But on the face of it they appeared to be minor or trifling injuries. Again the prosecution is entitled to succeed because it has satisfactorily proved the criminal acts and criminal intention on the part of the accused particularly when the alleged right of private defence was not relied upon nor established and particularly when the defendant did not put any question to the prosecution witnesses in cross examination in this connection but was satisfied by the specific defence of total denial to the effect that the accused had nothing to do with the incident and that he was wrongly involved because of previous enmity between the parties. Again in Thakarda Jamaji Balalji and Others v. The State of Gujarat 12 G. L. R 536 this court also observed:- "there is no general rule that in all cases where the prosecution witnesses have not satisfactorily explained the injuries on the person of the accused the prosecution must fail. Cases are conceivable in which prosecution witnesses may not have been able to see the injuries on the person of the accused where such injuries are under the garment worn by the accused and they are therefore on parts which are not visible". Cases are conceivable in which prosecution witnesses may not have been able to see the injuries on the person of the accused where such injuries are under the garment worn by the accused and they are therefore on parts which are not visible". IN the instant case in the first instance there is no warrant for holding in the absence of any material on record in that direction that the said injuries on the accused ware caused during the course of the same incident. The incident happened at 9. 45 p. m. on 9-6-1978. The injuries were first noted on the accused when he was arrested from his house at about I a. m. on the early morning of 10-6-1978. There is no evidence to show as to what was the age of these injuries and when they could have been inflicted. The injuries appeared to be minor in nature and therefore it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the prosecution witnesses have deliberately having fully known about these injuries suppressed the same. In this view of the matter we find no merit in this submission of Mr. Chinoy also. ( 11 ) THEN remains one more submission of Mr. Chinoy viz. that the F. I. R. Ex. 13 has been wrongly exhibited. It is true as pointed cut by Mr. Chinoy P. I. Waghela at about 10-15 p. m. on the day of the incident got information through police staff that they had come to know through people in the locality that in Golwad there was melee or affray and he therefore deputed some staff members. Now this information by no stretch of imagination can be equated with the information with regard to the commission of a congnizable offence. This information is also not reduced into writing. No questions were put to P. I. asking for details and particulars of this information about the incident. This oral information therefore which P. I. Waghela received indirectly from his staff members who in turn had received it from some members of the public from the locality cannot be termed as information with regard to the commission of cognizable offence and therefore it cannot be said that Ex. This oral information therefore which P. I. Waghela received indirectly from his staff members who in turn had received it from some members of the public from the locality cannot be termed as information with regard to the commission of cognizable offence and therefore it cannot be said that Ex. 13 which contains information of such a nature conveyed to the police at the earliest point of time is wrongly admitted as F. I. R. ( 12 ) THESE were all the points canvassed by Mr. Chinoy but he has not been able to impress us with any one of them. Appeal dismissed: Leave to appeal refused. .