JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Hanumangarh dated August 22, 1978 by which he convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them each to imprisonment for life. 2. Succinctly narrated the prosecution case giving rise to this appeal is as under:- Deceased Pema Ram owned agricultural land admeasuring, 13 Bighus in the precincts of village Gudia. Out of that land nine and a half bighas was under mortgage with appellant Vaidulla fora number of years. There was litigation between the appellant Vaidulla and deceased Pema Ram regarding that land. Pema Ram won the case at Bikaner. Vaidulla appellant preferred an appeal in the Board of Revenue at Ajmer and obtained a stay order about a month prior to the date of the occurrence which is July 21, 1976, Vaidula was intending to get the land registered in his name to which Pema Ram deceased was not agreeable. This had strained the relations between the two. Vaidulla used to openly threaten deceased Pema Ram to see him and threw a challenge that he would not permit him to have the possession of the land. A day prior to the date of occurrence mare of Vaidulla entered the field of the deceased Pema Ram and damaged the Naima crop. Pema Ram made a complaint to Sarpanch Rulia Singh (P.W. 4) and Panch Hari Ram and took them to the site. This further annoyed Vaidulla and he threw a challenge that he would See Pema Ram and how long the Panchayat would come to his help. On July 21, 1976 Pema Ram went to work at his field. Pema Ram had four daughters and no son. All the daughters were married Smt. Mani (P.W 5) having strained relations with her husband was living with her father. She also went to the field on the date of occurrence in the afternoon to bring grass for she goats. When Smt. Mani was picking-up grass Pema Ram was doing the Slid'. The sky was cast with clouds and Pema Ram told his daughter that as it was about to rain, they should leave for the house. Mani proceed ahead with the grass bundle and Pema Ram followed her. When Smt. Mani was picking-up grass Pema Ram was doing the Slid'. The sky was cast with clouds and Pema Ram told his daughter that as it was about to rain, they should leave for the house. Mani proceed ahead with the grass bundle and Pema Ram followed her. When Mani had reached near Yusuf wali puliya she heard the cry of Mare re Mare re from behind. On turning her face towards the back side she found the appellants Vajjan Ali and Sahu causing injuries with Kasiya and Gandasi and appellant Vaidulla with the butt of gun to her father. She rushed towards her father but could not reach near him as Vaidulla threatened her by pointing out the gun at her and told her to stop using the world Khaloja. Smt Mani got frightened and went away towards the village and reached the house of Rulia Singh (P W. 4). She threw the bundle of grass with her on the heap of rubbish (Okardi) outside the house of Rulia Singh and narrated the incident to him Ruliya Singh collected Hari Ram, Moo'a Ram etc. and they along with many other villagers went to the place of occurrence and found Pema Ram lying dead, bleeding from the injuries sustained by him. Rulia Singh accompanied Mani to Police Station Sangaria where at 11.00 pm. Mani lodged an oral information which reduced into writing is Ex. P. 4. Sita Ram, A.S I. (P W. 7) reached the site at 12.15 or 12 30 p.m. and deputed Shiv Narayan and one Constable to guard the dead body. Sita Ram, A.S I. at 5.30 p m. again reached at the site and proceeded with the investigation. He inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex. P. 5 and site inspection memo Ex. P. 5A. The turban, the pair of shoes and Kasiya belonging to the deceased and one piece of stick (Farchant) were found lying near the dead body which were taken possession vide memos Ex P. 10, 11, 12 and 13 respectively. The blood stained soil and control soil were taken in possession from the site vide memos Ex. P. 8 and 9. The inquest memo Ex. P. 6 and the Panchayatnama of the dead body Ex. 7 were also prepared. The clothes of the deceased were taken in possession vide memo Ex. P. 14. The blood stained soil and control soil were taken in possession from the site vide memos Ex. P. 8 and 9. The inquest memo Ex. P. 6 and the Panchayatnama of the dead body Ex. 7 were also prepared. The clothes of the deceased were taken in possession vide memo Ex. P. 14. All the articles seized during the course of investigation were sealed then and there. On July 22, 1976 at the requisition of Police Sangaria, Dr. S.M. Saini, Medical Officer, Incharge, Primary Health Centre Sangaria, conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Pema Ram and prepared the postmortem examination report Ex. P. 3. 3. The Doctor noted the following external injuries on the dead body : (1) Incised wound 2" x 1/4" x bone deep on fore-head right side just above and parallel to eye-brow. (2) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep on right eye-brow on lateral most part and adjoining part of right upper eye lid. (3) Bruise with two lacerated wounds on either end of the bruise, bruise 2" x 1/4" wounds 1/4" x 1/4" x skin deep each on maxillary area left side. (4) Incised wound ending into a scratch 21/2" x 1/4" bone deep on lower jaw left side close to chin. (5) Incised wound 1/2 x 1/4" x skin deep on right side of jaw and parallel to jaw. (6) Two superficial incised wounds 1" x 0.1" x superficial layers of skin on neck right side horizontally placed. (7) Abrasion 1" x 0.1" on right shoulder enteriorly. (8) Pinna of tight ear cut in an area of 1" x 1/4", one more incised wound just behind this injury on right mastoid region lx l/4"x scalp deep, (cut portion of the pinna was hanging loose) (9) Incised wound 2" x 1/4" x scalp deep on occipital region right side horizontally placed. (10) Incised wound 11/4" x 1/4" scalp deep on occipital region left side in line with injury No. 8 separated by 1 " of normal skin from it. (11) Incised wound l1/2"z l/4"x scalp deep on parietal region posterior part centrally and sagitally placed. (12) Incised wound 2" x 1/2 scalp deep on left parietal region sagitally placed scalp hanging loose. (13) Incised wound 1" x 0.1" x skin deep on left shoulder region postly. (14) Brusie abrasion 11/2" x 1/2" on right shoulder region superiorly. (11) Incised wound l1/2"z l/4"x scalp deep on parietal region posterior part centrally and sagitally placed. (12) Incised wound 2" x 1/2 scalp deep on left parietal region sagitally placed scalp hanging loose. (13) Incised wound 1" x 0.1" x skin deep on left shoulder region postly. (14) Brusie abrasion 11/2" x 1/2" on right shoulder region superiorly. (15) Bruise 2" x 1/2"on left temporal region. 4. On dissection of the dead body the Doctor observed as under : "Fracture of left temporal bone and frontal bone right side were observed. Brain and meninges under the fractures were found injured. Blood was present over the brain and meninges clotted blood was also present under the scalp underneath the injuries". 5. In the opinion of the Doctor all the injuries were ante-mortem and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Except incised wounds, which were caused by the sharp weapon, all other injuries were caused by blunt weapon. The Doctor opined that the death was due to shock and stoppage of vital functions, due to injuries on skull and brain caused by sharp and blunt weapons. 6. The appellant and co-accused Hasan (since acquitted by the learned trial Judge) were arrested on August 10, 1976. During the course of investigation in pursuance of the information of Hasan one 'Kasiya was recovered. 7. After completion of investigation charge sheet under Section 302 Indian Penal Code against the three appellants and under Section 201 Indian Penal Code against Hasan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. 8. The learned Magistrate finding a primafacie case exclusively triable by the Court of sessions committed the appellants and Hasan to stand their trial there. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2. Hanumangarh charge sheeted Vaidulla for the offences under sections 302 and 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code and appellants Vajan Ali. Sahu and co-accused Hasan for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code. When their plea was recorded all of them denied the indictments and claimed to be tried To substantiate its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses in all. All the accused in their statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure totally denied the allegations levelled against them Shambhu Singh, Investigating Officer (D.W. 1) was examined from the defence side. When their plea was recorded all of them denied the indictments and claimed to be tried To substantiate its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses in all. All the accused in their statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure totally denied the allegations levelled against them Shambhu Singh, Investigating Officer (D.W. 1) was examined from the defence side. Two more witnesses were examined to substantiate the defence that Smt. Mani was not the eye witness to the occurrence. The learned trial Judge did not find any case proved against Hasan and therefore, acquitted him of the charge. So far as the three appellants are concerned, the prosecution evidence was relied upon and they were convicted and sentenced as stated earlier. 9. We heard Mr. T.C. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N.S. Acharya, learned Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the complainant and carefully examined the record of the case. 10. At the commencement of the arguments Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this is a case in which investigation has not been fair and material witnesses able to disclose the true story were withheld by the prosecution. According to Mr. Mehta, four important eye witnesses in the case, who were examined under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whose names appeared in the list of the witness s filed along with the incomplete charge sheet were not examined at the trial and therefore, the learned trial Judge could not know what exactly the matter was and therefore, this is a fit case in which a retrial should be ordered by this Court. 11. Mr. Mehta contended that the prosecution case in reality, as evident from the statements of witnesses not examined at the trial was that Hasan alone was the perpetrator of the crime, but Rulia Singh, Sarpanch being inimical to Vaidulla appellant and Smt. Mani being interested in taking possession of the field from this appellant conspired together and dropped the real culprit Hasan and concocted a false case against Vaidulla and his two grown-up sons so that there may not remain any hurdle in the way of Smt. Mani in getting possession of the land. 12. Mr. 12. Mr. Mehta emphasised that in this case two parallel stories were running at the time of the investigation, as is evident from the defence witnesses Mukh Ram (D.W. 2) and Sattar (D.W. 3). The defence story is more probable and in such circumstances, the conviction of the three appellants on the basis of the weak prosecution evidence is not sustainable. 13. The learned Public Prosecutor contested this prayer for a retrial and strenuously contended that the evidence clearly shows that the story about Hasan along being the perpetrator of the crime was manipulated by Shambhu Singh, Station House Officer. (D.W.1). Police Station Sangaria after the initial investigation by Sita Ram A.S.I (P.W. 7) was made. That a complaint Ex. P. 21 was filed against Shambhu Singh resulting in withdrawal of the investigation of the case from him. Hence Mr. Acharya, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that no material witness was withheld at the trial so as to justify any retrial. 14. Mr. Mehta has referred to the statement of Shambhu Singh (D.W.l) wherein he stated that he had interrogated Samrno Devi. Dharu Singh. Radha Singh and Khusi Mohammed and recorded their statements and had also got their statements recorded in the Court. No such statements were exhibited in the trial Court and naturally so, because though the names of these lour persons find place in the list of the witnesses filed along with the incomplete charge sheet, in the final list annexed to the complete charge sheet their names do not find place. The relevant record does not show what the statements of these witnesses were and there is no provision of law for us to take help of their statements, even if any, recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is pertinent to note that this appeal is directed against the conviction of the three appellants viz. Sahu, Vajan Ali and Vaidulla and not against the judgment of acquittal of Hasan From the careful examination of the record, the contention of Mr. Acharya that Shunbhu Singh was suspected of not investigating the matter with fairness and therefore, investigation was taken away from him appears to be correct. The date of occurrence was July 21, 1976. Sita Ram. ASI (PW 7), Sangaria was incharge of the investigation up to July 23, 1976. Acharya that Shunbhu Singh was suspected of not investigating the matter with fairness and therefore, investigation was taken away from him appears to be correct. The date of occurrence was July 21, 1976. Sita Ram. ASI (PW 7), Sangaria was incharge of the investigation up to July 23, 1976. It was on July 23, 1976 that Sambhu Singh, Station House Officer, (DW 1) took charge of the investigation The important witnesses including Smt. Mani were already examined by Sita Ram, ASI (PW 7), still Shambhu Singh (DW 1) reexamined Smt. Mani and recorded her statement Ex. D. 2 The four persons whose statements according to Mr. Mehta were material for revealing the true facts of the case were examined by Shambhu Singh (DW1). Smt. Mani in her deposition at the trial has submitted that as she was threatened by Shunbhu Singh, Station House Officer and asked to drop the names of the three appellants on the ground that Hasan was the culprit she had made a complaint to that effect to the Superintendent of Police. Shambhu Singh has admitted that Smt. Mani on August 2, 1976 had filed a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police which was handed over to the witness and he filed the same which according to him is Ex, P 21. As Hasan has been acquitted by the trial Judge and as no appeal has been filed against his acquittal by the State Government with the leave of this Court, the case cannot be sent back to the lower Court for recording the evidence of four witnesses who implicated Hasan in the commission of the murder of Pema Ram, especially when the prosecution did not include the names of these four witnesses in the complete charge sheet filed against the appellants and Hasan co-accused. It appears that Sambhu Singh in the course of investigation tried to demolish the prosecution case by inclusion of these four witnesses in the incomplete charge sheet filed by him so as to throw the entire responsibility of the murder on the shoulders of Hasan but on a timely complaint made by Smt. Mani to the Superintendent of Police, the investigation was taken from Sambhu Singh and entrusted to another Investigating Officer who left out there four witnesses from the list submitted by him along with the complete challan. Hence it cannot be safely held that the evidence of material witnesses was deliberately with held by the prosecution without any sufficient reason. 15. Mr. Mehta next contended that two parallel conflicting stories were there in the investigation. One showing the three appellants as the miscreants while the other holding Hasan alone guilty for the occurrence. No witness examined at the trial has stated about Hasan being the perpetrator of the crime or he being present at the site. As we would discuss later, while scanning the testimony of Smt. Mani, name of Hasan does not appear in the First Information Report. On the other hand she has specifically deposed that she was threatened by Sambhu Singh, Station House Officer to drop the names of the three appellants and instead name Hasan as the murderer. 16. It has been argued by Mr. Mehta that if the three appellants and not Hasan were connected with the commission of crime, it was expected of the prosecution to take steps to get the charge against Hasan under section 302 Indian Penal Code quashed and the failure of the prosecution to do so leads to the conclusion that the prosecution agencies themselves were not sure as to what exactly the matter was. 17. The prosecution agency cannot be taken at fault in this connection The reason is that on the point of recovery of one Kasiya in pursuance of the information furnished by Hasan, while under arrest, charge sheet under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code only was filed against him. It was the trial Judge who had framed the charge under section 302 Indian Penal Code also against Hasan. Hence, merely because prosecution allowed the trial to go on against Hasan for a charge of murder, it cannot be said that prosecution was not sure about the crime being committed by the three appellants. 18. In order to emphasise the point that it was Hasan and not the three appellants who committed the crime, Mr Mehta also referred to the recovery of a piece of a danda, which according to him was that of the danda of the Kasiya recovered in pursuance of the information furnished by Hasan. This point does not require any consideration. In order to emphasise the point that it was Hasan and not the three appellants who committed the crime, Mr Mehta also referred to the recovery of a piece of a danda, which according to him was that of the danda of the Kasiya recovered in pursuance of the information furnished by Hasan. This point does not require any consideration. Firstly because we are not hearing any appeal against the acquittal of Hasan and secondly because Hasan happens to be the son of Vaidulla and is a young boy whose age at the time of the alleged incident was about twelve years and does not live separate from his father. Hence the recovery, even if any, cannot be said to be from a place in his exclusive possession. 19. In view of the above discussion we are not impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that this is a case worth retrial or on these preliminary grounds alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 20. Assailing the findings of the learned trial Judge regarding the conviction of the three appellants their learned counsel vehemantly emphasised that as the prosecution case rests on the solitary testimony of Smt. Mani daughter of the deceased who was interested in the prosecution and inimical to the appellants, the conviction of the appellants cannot be said to be justified. 21. It has also been argued that Rulia Singh (P.W. 4) is inimical to Vaidulla and therefore, he had instigated Smt. Mani to falsely implicate Vaidulla and his two sons, the other two appellants, so that she may get the possession of her fathers land. 22. In the light of these grounds raised, we would now discuss the evidence of Smt. Mani, the only eye witness in the case to ascertain whether she is a witness of sterling worth and it is safe to base the conviction on her solitary testimony. 23. The first infirmity in the evidence of this witness, pointed out by Mr. Mehta, is that she was a chance witness and had no occasion to see the actual occurrence. It has been urged that there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of two defence witnesses viz. 23. The first infirmity in the evidence of this witness, pointed out by Mr. Mehta, is that she was a chance witness and had no occasion to see the actual occurrence. It has been urged that there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of two defence witnesses viz. Mukh Ram (D.W. 2) and Sattar (D.W. 3), that on being informed by Puran Singh Smt Mani present at her house came to know about her father being injured and then she went to the site. To substantiate his contention Mr Mehta has submitted that the presence of Smt. Mani at the time of the incident at the site becomes doubtful on being tested by certain chicks available on the record. One is her not pointing out the place where from she dug the grass for the she-goats and where she threw the bundle while entering the house of Rulia Singh (P.W. 4). The other is her not informing the inhabitants of the village whose houses were nearer to the site than the house of Rulia Singh. 24. So far as the story omitting from Mukh Ram (D.W. 2) and Sattar (D.W. 3) is concerned we have no hesitation to say that it is not at all worth reliance. The neighboured knowing of such an incident not going to the site immediately is sufficient to throw a doubt on their testimony. Relevant it is to note, that though these witnesses have stated that on the next day they had told this fact to police on interrogation, no question has been put to the investigating officer as to whether these two persons were examined during the course of investigation at all or any evidence of this type had come to his notice. In this view of the matter, merely because the two defence witnesses have stated about Smt. Mani being at her house at the time of the incident, we are unable to accept the arguments of Mr. Mehta that in this case two views-one of Smt Mani being at the site and the other her being at the house at the time of the incident are possible and therefore, the view in favour of the defence should have been given weight. To substantiate his contention he referred to the case of Anne Nageswara Rao v. Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 S.C. 1387 . 25. To substantiate his contention he referred to the case of Anne Nageswara Rao v. Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 S.C. 1387 . 25. In that case the judgment of acquittal was reversed by the High Court. When the matter went to Supreme Court it was held that High Court was not justified in in referring with the well considered judgment of the Sessions Judge. It was observed that the utmost that could be said was that two views were possible and it was not therefore, a case where the High Court was justified in setting aside an order of acquittal and convicting the appellant. On appreciation of evidence their Lordships of the Supreme Court were of opinion that the balance of probabilities was slightly in favour of the appellant. In view of the gap in the alleged time of occurrence and the filing of the First Information Report it was held that the whole story, as found in the First Information Report had been thought-up by that time. One of the prosecution witnesses was held to have at least some motive to falsely implicate the appellants. In view of these facts it was not thought safe to rely on the testimony of the main prosecution witnesses. 26. In the present case matter stands on a different footing. It has clearly come in the statement of Smt. Mani that she had gone to her filed to take grass for the she-goats and on being told by her father to leave for house as it was about to rain, had left the field and her father followed her. Much emphasis has been laid on the Statement of Sita Ram, A.S.I. (P.W. 7) that Smt. Mani had not pointed out the place where form she dug the grass and where she had thrown the bundle after the occurrence, while going to the house of Rulia Singh (PW 4). Smt. Mani has of course stated about those places being shown by her to the Sub-Inspector and on this point stands falsified by Sita Ram (PW 7). Smt. Mani has of course stated about those places being shown by her to the Sub-Inspector and on this point stands falsified by Sita Ram (PW 7). But these minor discrepancies in the two stunts are not sufficient to discard the evidence of the witness in toto or to doubt her presence at the time of occurrence Even assuming for the sake of argument that she did not point out those places, still that would not be sufficient to hold that she had introduced the story in order to establish her presence at the site. The reason is that she is a rustic woman and cannot be expected to be very particular about narration of all the minor details to the investigating officer or to realise the importance of such petty factors. Be it as it may, this is not the infirmity of the type which may have any important bearing on the case so as to lead to the conclusion that Smt. Mani was not present there at the time of the incident. 27. A chance witness is a person who by coincidence or chance happens to be at the place of occurrence. It is the evidence of such chance witness which is viewed with suspicion. Even then such a piece of evidence is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable but required close scrutiny. Smt. Mani cannot be said to be present at the time of the incident merely by coincidence or chance The reason for this opinion of ours is that her version about her presence at the field and she and her father together leaving the field for the house finds place in the first Information Report Ex. P. 4 which was promptly lodged at Police Station. Sangariaa. It is also noteworthy that immediately after the occurrence she had rushed to Rulia Singh and narrated that she had seen. 28. We would now deal with the argument that Smt. Mani being related to the victim and inimical to the assailants should not be believed unless there is other corroborative piece of evidence. According to Mr. Mehta, there being enmity between the appellants and the witness, her evidence is a suspect. He substantiated his arguments by referring to the principle enunciated in the case of Varghese Thomas v. State of Kerala, AIR 1977 S.C., 701. According to Mr. Mehta, there being enmity between the appellants and the witness, her evidence is a suspect. He substantiated his arguments by referring to the principle enunciated in the case of Varghese Thomas v. State of Kerala, AIR 1977 S.C., 701. that where there is no previous enmity between the deceased or his relatives on the one side and the accused on the other, the evidence given by the relatives of the deceased cannot be regarded as suspect, needing corroboration from independent witnesses. 29. From this view expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court Mr Mehta built up the argument, that when the position is reverse i.e. there is previous enmity between the deceased and his relatives and the accused, the evidence given by the relative should be regarded as suspect. We do not subscribe to this argument because all that is required in such case is a close scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses. Corroboration is not always necessary for accepting such evidence. This principle has been propounded by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Darya Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 S.C. 328 . and it has been observed as under : "In a trial for the offence of murder where the witness is a close relation of the victim and is shown to share the victims hostility to his assailant, that makes it necessary for the criminal courts to examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinise all the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it. In dealing with such evidence, Courts begin with the enquiry as to whether the said witnesses were chance witnesses or whether they were really present on the scene of the offence". 30. In the present case, as evident from our above discussion, we have not agreed with the learned counsel for the appellants that Smt Mani was a chance witness. In such circumstance we find it profitable to recite the following guide lines laid down by their Lordships in the case just referred to above. "If the criminal court is satisfied that the witness who is related to the victim was not a chance witness, then his evidence has to be examined from the point of view of probabilities and the account given by him as to the assault has to be carefully scrutinised". 31. "If the criminal court is satisfied that the witness who is related to the victim was not a chance witness, then his evidence has to be examined from the point of view of probabilities and the account given by him as to the assault has to be carefully scrutinised". 31. Hence the important point for consideration is whether the testimony of Smt. Mani is of sterling worth and conviction can be based on her solitary testimony and whether any corroboration thereof is required and if so, there is any corroboration available. 32. In cases where the evidence of a solitary evidence is of unimpeachable character there it, nothing wrong in the courts acting upon the testimony of such solitary witness without corroboration, unless the circumstances of a particular case necessitate corroboration. The corroboration required for the evidence of a witness related to the complainant came for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnail Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 S.C., 204. and it was observed as under : "The corroboration that is required in the case of the testimony of a witness who is the relation of the deceased in a murder case is not what would be necessary to support the evidence of an approver but what would be sufficient to lend assurance to the evidence before the court and satisfy the court that the particular persons were really concerned in the murder of the deceased". 33. Mr. Mehta has referred to the case of The State v. Bishnat, 1953 R.L.W., 423. to strengthen his arguments that it is not safe to base conviction on the testimony of a single witness. We may observe that in that case it was so held because the sole witness was held to be unreliable. 34. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that looking to the nature of the credible evidence of Smt. Mani no corroboration is required, still if any necessity is felt, it may be found in the statement of Rulia Singh (P.W. 4) and the First Information Report Ex. P. 4 filed by Smt. Mani. 35. Smt. Mani on seeing the appellants causing injuries to her father rushed to the house of Rulia Singh and narrated the story to him and the latter along with a few others accompanied her to the site. P. 4 filed by Smt. Mani. 35. Smt. Mani on seeing the appellants causing injuries to her father rushed to the house of Rulia Singh and narrated the story to him and the latter along with a few others accompanied her to the site. It was this Rulia Singh who had accompanied Smt. Mani to the Police Station and had also appended his signatures on Ex. P. 4. the First Information Report lodged by Smt. Mani. At this juncture we may deal with criticism levelled against this witness by the learned counsel for the appellants. 36. According to Mr. Mehta the First Information Report does not contain what had actually happened, rather is an effort of Sarpanch Rulia Singh (P.W. 4) to implicate his enemy Vaidulla and his two sons in a false case. He referred to the statement of Puran Singh (P.W. 1) narrating the enmity between Vaidulla and Rulia Singh. At the very out set, we may observe that Puran Singh is a witness hostile to the prosecution and on carefully going through his statement we could not find any part of it on which reliance can be placed. Suggestion had been made to Rulia Singh (P.W 4) about Vaidulla giving a beating to him and his filing a case against the former. The witness denied that suggestion and no evidence to the effect that any such case was ever instituted had been brought on record. Rulia Singh (P.W. 4) is a Sarpanch He has of course admitted that at the Panchayat, Panch Hukam Singh had moved the Panchayat that Vaidullas animal were damaging the crops in the fields and a resolution was passed against Vaidulla and was sent to the Nazim. 37. Another attack on the truthfulness of the evidence of Rulia Singh (P.W. 4 is that he was interested in the deceased and his daughter Smt. Mani and therefore, has falsely supported the prosecution case that Mani reached him after the occurrence and narrated the facts to him. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to that part of the statement of Smt. Mani wherein she had deposed that when Vaidulas mare damaged the crop in the field of her father, the latter approached Sarpanch Rulia Singh and Panch Hira Ram. Rulia Singh and Hira Ram along with two or four persons went to see the site in the field. Rulia Singh and Hira Ram along with two or four persons went to see the site in the field. The witness further deposed that Vaidulla had threatened her father that he would see him and how long Panchayat would come to his help. According to Mr. Mehta, this clearly shows that Panchayat headed by Rulia Singh was out and out to help the deceased Pema Ram and therefore, when he was murdered Rulia Singh sought an opportunity to implicate these three innocent appellants so that be may help Smt Mani to get the possession of the land which Vaidulla was resisting The argument is not at all appealing because Rulia Singh, being the Sarpanch, was expected to give an ear to the grievances of villagers and it was not as a personal end of the deceased that he might have gone to the field to see what damage the mare of Vaidulla had caused there. Similarly the fact that Smt. Mani went to the house of Rulia Singh to inform him about the incident is not a strange phenomenon. The reason is that Rulia Singh was the Sarpanch and Villagers repose confidence in the Panchas and Sarpanch. Similarly she being the only person left in the house after the death of Pema Ram, there was nothing extra ordinary in the conduct of the Sarpanch in accompanying her to the Police Station. Rulia Singh (P W. 4) has been cross-examined at length but nothing could be extracted from him which may create any doubt on his deposition and may lead to an inference that he had attempted to falsely implicate innocent persons. Apart from it, Rulia Singh has not appeared as an eye witness rather has only corroborated the evidence Smt Mani to the extent that she soon after the incident went to him and told him what had happened. The facts i.e. strained relations between her father and Vaidulla, her being there at the field and then father and daughter together leaving the field; her seeing the three appellants dealing blows with Kasiya' Gandasiand butt of the gun to her father; Vaidulla threatening her when she rushed towards her father and her going to Rulia Singh and narrating the facts to him find place in the First Information Report which lend assurance to her evidence at the trial. 38. Mr. 38. Mr. Mehta has challenged the veracity of the statement of Smt. Mani on the ground that in the First Information Report she has not specifically stated as to which out of the two appellants viz. Vajan Ali and Sahu sons of Vaidulla were inflicting injuries with Kasiya and Gandasi on the head of her father at the time she saw towards him on hearing his cries. According to Mr. Mehta, in this part of the statement name of Vajan Ali proceeds Sahu and out of the two weapons viz. Kasiya and Gandasi, Kasiya appears first and therefore it should be inferred that the witness meant to say that Vajan Ali was having Kasiya' and Sahu was having Gandasi'. The argument is not at all appealing for the reason that the witness has not used the word respectively after the two weapons. Similar argument has been advanced in this regard for the version in Ex. D. 1, the Police statement of Smt. Mani and the argument can be met-out in the same way. 39. Another inconsistency pointed out by Mr. Mehta in the statement of Smt. Mani in the Court and the First Information Report Ex. P. 4 and her statement before the Police Ex. D. 1, is that in the Court she stated that it was through her father that she came to know about the mare of Vaidulla entering their field and the Panchayat assembling on that count The witness also stated about her father informing her about threats given by Vaidulla and she herself not being present at that time Her attention was drawn to the First Information Report Ex. P. 4 and her statement before the Police Ex D. 1. wherein while narrating these facts she has not stated about her father informing her of the same. Her explanation is that she had made the above statement but the Police might not have written so. The villagers being ignorant of the technicalities of legal proceedings are not so particular to narrates the facts in a systematic way. What the witness has stated before the Police was the reason for the incident and therefore, even in case she had not mentioned therein that it was through her father that she came to know of that, her testimony cannot be doubted on that score alone. 40. What the witness has stated before the Police was the reason for the incident and therefore, even in case she had not mentioned therein that it was through her father that she came to know of that, her testimony cannot be doubted on that score alone. 40. We are fortified in our opinion by the principle enunciated in the case of Gurnam Kaur v. Bakshish Singh and Others, 1981 CR. L. Journal, 34. In that case the First Information Report was filed by a rustic lay woman, just as in the case at hand. The fact that the First Information Report did not mention about clothes becoming stained with blood was not considered to be a circumstance of significance, with the finding that as the First Information Report given by a rustic lay woman is not to be equated to the summary of the entire prosecution case and a mere omission to mention an incidental fact cannot have the effect of nullifying an otherwise prompt and impeachable report. 41. Similarly the argument of Mr. Mehta that Smt. Mani must not have pointed out to the Police the place where from she took the grass and where she had thrown the bundle after the incident does not impress us. While discussing the point whether on this count the witness can be taken to be a chance witness, we have discussed this point in detail. Here in this connection we may refer to the principle enunciated in the case of Shyaji Sahebrao Bobade and Another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 S.C., 2622 wherein their Lordships have been pleased to propound the following principle : "Where the witnesses to a criminal case are rustics, their behavioural pattern and perceptive habited have to be judged as such. The too sophisticated approaches familiar in courts based on unreal assumptions about human conduct cannot obviously be applied to those given to the lethargic ways of our villages. When scanning the evidence of the various witnesses the court has to inform itself that variances on the fringes, discrepancies n details contradictions in narrations and embellishments in inessential parts cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony, provided there is the impress of truth and conformity to probability in the substantial fabric of testimony delivered". 42. Next contention of Mr. 42. Next contention of Mr. Mehta regarding the veracity of the witness is, presence of certain factors in Ex D. 2, the Second Police statement of Sm Mani recorded by the Station House Officer, Shambhu Singh (D.W 1) on July 23, 1976. One of them is relating to the version that she had taken tea for her father and put the utensils at the house of Rulia Singh. Second is regarding the omission in it about Vaidulla causing injuries to Pema Ram with gun and Vajan Ali and Sahu having Gandasi and Kasiya' with them. We have already discussed the reasons advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor creating doubt about the fairness of the investigations by the Station House Officer Shambhu Singh. Smt. Mani has denied to have given any statement before the Station Officer Shambhu Singh. Not only that. she has specifically deposed that Shambhu Singh, Station Officer had gone to her house but did not interrogate her, rather threatened her and told that Vaidulla was not amongst the assailants and so she should drop him and name Hassan, as he was amongst the assailants. The witness further stated that Shambhu Singh had also told her that Vaidulla, Vajan Ali and Sahu were not amongst the assailants and therefore, she should drop all these three persons The witness asserted that she told Shambhu Singh that Vaidulla, Vajan Ali and Sahu were the assailants and she had her self seen them causing injuries to her father. She also stated that she had made an coal complaint to the Superintendent of Police about the threat held out to her by Shambhu Singh. As the record shows Shambhu Singh remained in charge of the investigation from July 23, 1976. While cross examining Shambhu Singh appearing as P.W, 1, it has been brought on record that on August 2, 1976 Smt. Mani had filed an application Ex P 21 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police which was received by the witness and filed by him. Otherwise also, there appears to be no reason to record the statement of the witness on July 21, 1976 by the new Investigating Officer when she had already been examined on July 22, 1976 by the then Investigating Officer. It also does not appear to be natural without there being a reason that Smt. Mani would change her version in one night. Ex. It also does not appear to be natural without there being a reason that Smt. Mani would change her version in one night. Ex. D 2 appears to be a tainted document and the appellants cannot claim ai y benefit out of it. This is correct that when there is a faulty investigation creating a doubt in the truthfulness of the prosecution benefit always goes to the accused. But in a case like the present one, when the record shows that the investigation by Shambhu Singh. Static,n House Officer was not fair then there is no reason to suspect the investigation conducted by Sita Ram, A S I. (P W. 7) on July 22, 1976 i.e. the date next to the occurrence. On a proper evaluation of the various facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the contradiction between the statement of Smt. Mani at the trial and her statement Ex. D. 2 recorded by Shambhu Singh (D.W 1) was solely on account of the effort of that investigating officer to give the case a different shape than what it really was. Hence the story given by Smt. Mani being consistent with her earliest version in the First Information Report and with her first police statement Ex. D. 1 cannot be suspected to be untruthworthy. 43. Mr Mehta also challenged the truthfulness of the statement given by Smt. Mani with reference to her conduct and raised Certain points. That, had Smt. Mani been there at the site of the occurrence her natural reaction would have been to rush to the nearest house and inform the inhabitants therein. That, it is not palatable that she would have kept the burden of the grass with her, while in a hurry to rush to the village and inform somebody about what her father had suffered at the hands of the assailants. That, it is not believable that while passing through the village having a population of 300 or 350 families and going to the other extreme to the house of Rulia Singh no body might have met the witness so as to enable her to disclose what had happened at the site. 44. The learned Public Prosecutor met out these arguments by submitting that Rulia Singh being the Sarpanch of the village was the best person to be approached by the witness. 44. The learned Public Prosecutor met out these arguments by submitting that Rulia Singh being the Sarpanch of the village was the best person to be approached by the witness. Smt. Mani has specifically deposed that she has gone weeping to the house of Rulia Singh and no body met her in the way. Though the village consisted of 300 or 350 houses and the house of Rulia Singh is at the other extreme, still it cannot be said that all those houses were in single tows on both the sides of the road so as to give an idea that the house of Rulia Singh must have been at a very great distance. If the witness instead of approaching any body about whom she might not be Certain to come to her help, had gone to Rulia Singh, there was nothing unnatural in later conduct. The bundle of grass was meant for the she-goats and therefore, it cannot be said that it was a heavy bundle which the witness while going swiftly could not have conveniently taken with her. We find no abnormality in her conduct so as to doubt her presence at the time of the occurrence. 45. Another point raised by Mr. Mehta is that she had stated about three weapons being used while from the medical evidence it can be inferred that only one weapon must have been used. The reasoning's advanced by Mr. Mehta are that the butt of the gun would not have caused petty injuries and all the incised wounds are almost of the same size. In this connection he referred to the statement of Dr. Saini (P.W. 3) who has stated that it is more likely that the incised wounds might have been caused by one weapon because the difference in the width of the wounds is not much. It is pertinent to note that the Doctor in the very next sentence has made it clear that the incised wounds can be caused by two different sharp weapons. Similarly, about injuries Nos. 3, 14 and 15 the opinion of the Doctor is that if the butt and of the gun corresponded to the size of bruise mainly, those injuries could be caused by the butt end of the gun. Similarly, about injuries Nos. 3, 14 and 15 the opinion of the Doctor is that if the butt and of the gun corresponded to the size of bruise mainly, those injuries could be caused by the butt end of the gun. In this view of the matter, the medical opinion is not contradictory, rather fits in with the evidence of the eye witness had lodged the First Information Report. 46. Mr. Mehta has laboured much to convince us that even if it is assumed that Smt. Mani was there near Yusuf wali pulia at the time of the assault made on her father, it could not have been possible for her to identify the assailants and to make out what weapon was being used by each of them. To substantiate his contention he has referred to the distance between the place she was at the time and the place where Pema Ram was found lying dead. This distance according to the witness was one and a half or two bighas. The power of perception differs from individual to individual. Dr. Hans Gross in his treatise. Criminal Investigation has discussed the power of perception of a witness and observed that presuming the eye sight to be normal and the light good, one is able, in broad daylight, to recognise : (a) Persons whom one knows very well, at a distance of from fifty to ninety yards; when there are particular and very characteristic signs, 110 yards; in exceptional cases up to 165 yards. (b) Persons one does not know very well and has not often seen, from twenty-eight to thirty-three yards. (c) People one has only seen once, sixteen yards. 47. The learned author has clarified that these are only approximate indications; in practice they are of but slight value. It has been further mentioned that in the first place, the statements concerning good normal eyesight and good light are vague and in addition certain supplemental circumstances often have decisive influence.The contention of Mr. Mehta that the distance between the two places must have been about 500ft. and there was no chance of the witness to recognise the assailants does not hold good. Mehta that the distance between the two places must have been about 500ft. and there was no chance of the witness to recognise the assailants does not hold good. Firstly, because the distance is not so much according to Smt. Mani and secondly, she ha not remained standing at the place where she was rather had rushed towards her father on hearing his cries of MARE RE MARE RE. Her contention that when she ran towards her father Vaidulla pointed out the gun towards her further strengthens her version that she was not far off from the place of occurrence, though the exact distance could not be known. 48. Another reason pointed out by' Mr. Mehta creating obstruction to the vision is that it was sunset time and the weather was cloudy and it was drizzling. According to Rulia Singh P.W. 4) though it was sun-set time when Smt. Mani reached him but the sun was still visible in the sky. According to Smt Mani there was slight drizzling, we are therefore, unable to agree with Mr. Mehta that in the circumstances of the case it was impossible for Smt. Mani to recognise the assailants and see what they were doing. 49. It has been next argued by Mr. Mehta that Smt. Mani should not be believed because there was nothing to motivate the assailants to committed the crime while on the other hand Smt. Mani had the motive of falsely implicate Vaidulla and his two sons. It has been submitted that there was a stay order in favour of Vaidulla which must have created annoyance to Pema Ram and also to his daughter and therefore, whosoever might have been the assailant Smt. Mani would have thought it profitable to implicate Vaidulla and his sons so that there may not be any difficulty in her taking the possession of her fathers field. The argument is not at all app ailing because as laid down in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1953 S.C. 364 . Smt. Mani being a close relative of the deceased would be the last person to screen a real culprit and falsely rope in innocent persons. The argument is not at all app ailing because as laid down in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1953 S.C. 364 . Smt. Mani being a close relative of the deceased would be the last person to screen a real culprit and falsely rope in innocent persons. Apart from this there is nothing on the record to show that she shared the hostility of the deceased to the assailants She was a natural witness of the occurrence and her testimony cannot be doubted only because she happened to be the daughter of the deceased between whom and the appellants there was some litigation about redemption of land. The test to be applied in such cases is whether or not her evidence has a ring of truth and we may say that her evidence satisfied the above test upon close scrutiny by us with utmost care and caution. 50. From all this discussion we are inclined to hold that Smt. Mani was there near the site of occurrence and had given a truthful version of what she had herself seen. There is no reason to disbelieve her cogent, convincing and unimpeachable evidence simply on the ground of her being related to the deceased who had inimical relations with Vaidulla appellant. The learned trial Judge has, in our opinion, committed no error in basing convicting on her solitary testimony. 51. Mr Mehta inter-alia contended that even if the prosecution story is taken to be true still presence of Vaidulla and the allegation about his using the butt of the gun to cause injury to Pema Ram is not believable for the reason that a person having an intention to commit the murder or sharing the same with the co-accused would not be content with using the butt of the gun only instead of firing the shot. 52. Human mind is a complicated machinery and what ideas strike to the perpetrator of a crime at a particular moment and what ways he adopts to materialise his thoughts cannot be guessed easily. The evidence of Smt. Mani relating to the action of Vaidulla i e. causing injuries to her father with the but of the gun gets support from the medical evidence that three out of the fifteen injuries sustained by Pema Ram were caused by blunt object. The evidence of Smt. Mani relating to the action of Vaidulla i e. causing injuries to her father with the but of the gun gets support from the medical evidence that three out of the fifteen injuries sustained by Pema Ram were caused by blunt object. There is the evidence of Smt. Mani that when she rushed towards her fatheron hearing his cries of MARE RE MARE RE Vaidulla uttered the words Khaloja and threatened her by pointing out the gun towards her. That being the position, the learned trial Judge in our opinion has rightly held appellant Vaidulla guilty for the murder of Pema Ram by pressing into service section 34 Indian Penal Code. 53. From the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt against all the three appellants beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and the findings of the learned trial Judge, based on sound reasoning do not warrant any interference. 54. Consequently, the appeal having no merits fails and is hereby dismissed Appellant Vajan Ali is in jail and shall suffer the sentence awarded to him by the trial Judge. Appellant Vaidulla and Sahu @ Sah Mohammed are on bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sri Ganganagar, is directed to take steps for their arrest and then send them to jail to serve out the sentences awarded to them by the trial Judge.Appeal Dismissed. *******