JUDGMENT 1. - This is a jail appeal by accused Kana against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated 24.7.79 convicting the appellant under sections 302, 302/34 and 324, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, under the first two counts and one year's rigorous imprisonment under the third count. 2. The facts and circumstances leading to the prosecution and conviction of the accusedappellant run as under : 3. At about 8.00 P.M. on 3.7.77, deceased victim Shivram, his father Lakhma Ram and other members of his family were sitting on a Chabutary out-side their house situate in village Radha-ka-bara Police Station Jahajpur district Bhilwara. The accused appellant and other accused Santosh Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector and Anandiya are also residents of the same village. Accused Anandiya and Nathu (accused acquitted) happened to pass by their side. Shivram told accused Anandiya that the thefts were committed at his instance and the villagers were taking them to task. This annoyed accused Anandiya. He went to his house, instantly returned after five or six minutes accompanied by his two sons Santosh Kumar and Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector and two more persons Nathu and accused-appellant Kanaram. The accused persons abusing Shivram and hi3 father. Thereafter Nathu, Santosh Kumar, Kana and Kanhaiya Lal (Collector) caught hold of Shivram. Accused Anandiya had a Gupti with him. He thrust the Gupti deep in to the left abdomen of Shivram. Shivram fell down and passed away instantaneously on the spot. Lakhmaram entreated with folded hands not to beat any further, Accused Anandiya thereupon caught hold of Lakhma and accused appellant Kana s/o Lalu struck a blow of his sword of the left side of Lakbma's neck. It resulted in deep cutting of the neck. Lakhmaram resulted in deep cutting of the neck. Lakhmaram also fell down and passed away then and there. Accused Santosh Kumar struck the blows of his Farshi to Lakhma's son Hari Prasad (P.W. 4). Accused appellant Kana s/o Lalu struck a blow of his weapon to Lakhma's other son Ganpatlal (PW 1). The accused persons thereafter dispersed away. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds of the victims. Ganpatlal (PW. 1) immediately rushed to police station, Jahajpur and presented written report Ex. PI of the occurrence at about 9.00 P. M. on the same day. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The accused persons thereafter dispersed away. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds of the victims. Ganpatlal (PW. 1) immediately rushed to police station, Jahajpur and presented written report Ex. PI of the occurrence at about 9.00 P. M. on the same day. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. PW 10 Umrao singh, Head Constable of Police arrived on the spot and kept a watch on me dead bodies. Next day, on 4.7.77, PW. 11 Bhopal singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police arrived on the spot and took up the investigation. He prepared the inquests of the victims inspected the site and took in possession the blood-smeared soil from there. The post mortem examinations of the victims dead bodies were conducted at about 1.20 P. M. on 4.7.77 by Dr. C.L. Verma, the then Medical Officer In charge, Referal Hospital, Jahajpur. The doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Shivram: (1) Stab wound 2 c.m. x I c m. x deep into the peritoneal cavity, cutting through the 8th rib. On the left side of the chest in the nipple line over 8th rib, by a sharp, polluted, cutting weapon. (2) Fracture of the left 8th rib in the nipple line. Consequent to injury No. 1 In the opinion of Dr. Verma, the cause of death of Shivram was shock caused by the stab injury. Injury No. 2 was the result of injury No. 1. He prepared postmortem examination report Ex. P. 10 4. The doctor noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Lakh maram : (1) Incised wound 11 c. m. x 5 c. m. x deep up to the vertebrae on the left side of neck. The wound extends from in front of the left ear cutting through the ear below it down to the neck and up to the vertebrae-cutting through all the structures in the way-due to a heavy cutting weapon. (2) Fracture of the left mandible, consequent to injury No. 1. (3) Fracutres of the left transverse proceeding at the 4th and 5th cervical vertebrae-consequent to injury No. 1. (4) Incised wound 5 c.m. x 3 c. m. x. whole skin deep on the back of left forearm 3 c. m above the neck. By a sharp weapon. (5) Incised wound 1. 5. x 0. 5 c. m x whole depthe. (3) Fracutres of the left transverse proceeding at the 4th and 5th cervical vertebrae-consequent to injury No. 1. (4) Incised wound 5 c.m. x 3 c. m. x. whole skin deep on the back of left forearm 3 c. m above the neck. By a sharp weapon. (5) Incised wound 1. 5. x 0. 5 c. m x whole depthe. On the back at left palm by a sharp weapon. In the opinion of Dr. Verma. the cause of death was shock due to the injuries on the neck. The postmortem examination report issued by him is Ex. P. 9. 5. The doctor was also of the opinion that the injuries found on the victims dead bodies were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injuries of Hari Prasad (PW 4) were examined by Dr. Verma. Four injuries were found c n his body caused by sharp weapon, one of which was grievous. The injury report issued by him Ex. P. 8. The injuries of PW 1 Ganpatlal were examined by PW 7 Dr. P. C. Bapna, the then Medical Officer Incharge, Referal Hospital, Jahajpur. One incised wound was found on his body. The injury report issued by Dr. Bapna is Ex.P.7. Accused Anandiya, Santosh Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector and Nathu were arrested and in consequence of the disclosure statements made by them, some of the weapons used in the commission of the offence were recovered. The blood-stained clothes of the victims were also seized and sealed. Accused-appellant Kana s/o Lalu absconded and remained absconding for a pretty long time. On chemical examination, human blood was detected on some of the recovered articles. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against accused Anandiya, Satosh Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector and Nathu in the Court of Munsif aad Judicial Magistrate, Jahajpur showing accused appellant Kana as absconding therein. The accused appellant was arrested in some other case. In August 1978 he was also arrested in this case. The Police submitted a challan against him in the Court of Munsit and Judicial Magistrate, Jahajpur. who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge Bhilwara framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149, 307/149 and 24, I P.C. against the accused-appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge Bhilwara framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149, 307/149 and 24, I P.C. against the accused-appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. The defence taken by him was one of alibi. According to accused he was in village Nasarda at the time of the commission of the offence. During trial the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence the accused examined one witness. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the charges under sections (302, 302/34 and 324, I.P.C. duly proved against the accused-appellant. The defence of alibi was held as false and unfounded. The accused appellant was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. Hence this appeal. 6. We have heard the learned amicus curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 7. Mr. Adwani, the learned amicus curiae did not and could not challenge the homicidal deaths of Lakhmaram and his son Shivram. We have carefully gone through the testimony of Dr. Verma (PW 3) and the post mortem examination reports issued by him. We find no good and cogent reasons to disbelieve his opinion about the causes of deaths of the two victims. It, therefore, stands proved that the deaths of Shivram and Lakhmaram were not natural but homicidal in nature. 8. Before proceeding further, we may point out that the prosecution examined five ocular witnesses, each of whom has claimed to have seen the occurrence. They are : PW 1 Ganpatlal, PW 2 Madanlal, PW 4 Hari Prasad, PW 7 Gajraj and PW 8 Mst. Batula alias Kesar. 9. In assailing the conviction, the first contention raised by the learned amicus curiae is that all these witnesses are closely related to the two deceased-victims. No independent witness of the village has been produced by the prosecution. As such the conviction of the accused appellant under section 302, I.P.C. on the basis of these five eye witnesses is extremely risky. It was argued that since these five witnesses were interested persons in the deceased victims, their testimony should not be readily accepted as true. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contention urged before us and find no substance in it. It was argued that since these five witnesses were interested persons in the deceased victims, their testimony should not be readily accepted as true. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contention urged before us and find no substance in it. It is true that PW 1 Ganpatlal and PW 4 Hari Prasad are the real sons of deceased victim Lakhma and the real brothers of the deceased victim Shivram. So also, PW 2 Madaa Lal, PW 7 Gajraj and PW 8 Mst. Batula are the close relatives being the cousins and cousin's wife of the deceased victim Shivram. We are unable to agree with the learned amicus curiae that the testimony of an eye witness should be discarded merely because he or she is a close relative of the victims. What is required is that the testimony of a relative witness should be examined carefully and cautiously. 10. The names of all these five witnesses have been mentioned in the First Information Report Ex. P 1 lodged promptly within two hours of the occurrence at the Police Station which is only four miles away from the place of occurrence. That affords a check that these five witnesses were not falsely introduced as ocular witnesses of the incident afterwards. Now, PW 1 Ganpatlal deposed that accused Santosh Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector, Kana and Nathu caught hold of Shivram and thereafter accused Anandiya thrust the Gupti in his left abdomen and instantly took it out. Shivram fell down and passed away instantaneously on the spot. Thereafter accused Anandiya, Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector, Santosh Kumar and Nathu caught hold of Lakhmaram and accused Kana struck a blow of his Farshi like sword on his neck. The neck was nearly cut in half. Lakhmaram fell down and breathed his last then and there. The same facts were deposed by PW 2 Madanlal, PW 4 Hari Prasad, PW 7 Gajraj and PW 8 Mst. Batul. All these witnesses were cross examined at great length. The learned Sessions Judge scrutinised their evidence with proper care and caution. He held that though Nathu was present but he tried to intervene and took no part in the commission of the offence. Batul. All these witnesses were cross examined at great length. The learned Sessions Judge scrutinised their evidence with proper care and caution. He held that though Nathu was present but he tried to intervene and took no part in the commission of the offence. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge that accused Santosh Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector and accused appellant Kana s/o Lalu caught hold of Shiv Ram and accused Anandiya thrust the Gupti deep in his left abdomen, is based on a proper appraisal of the evidence of these five eye witnesses. We are unable to take a different view. It, therefore, stands well proved that accused Santosh Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal alias Collector and Kana s/o Lalu caught hold of Shivram and accused Anandiya caused his death by thrusting the Gupti in his left abdomen. 11. Coming to the murder of Lakhmaram, these five witnesses have deposed that the four accused (including Nathu, who is acquitted) caught hold of Lakhma and accused Kana s/o Lalu struck a blow of his Farshi like sword on his neck resulting nearly in its half cut. The learned Sessions Judge did not believe the role assigned to accused Santosh Kumar, and Kanhaiyalal alias Collector in their catching hold of Lakhmaram. As regards the role played by accused Anandiya in catching hold of deceased victim Lakhmaram, it is not open to any doubt. The learned Sessions Judge, after a careful scanning of evidence of the eye witnesses, held that accused Anandiya caught hold of Lakhmaram while accused appellant Kana s/o Lalu struck a blow of sword like Farshi on his neck. This finding appears correct and no interference is called for. The first contention of the learned amicus curiae, thus, has no substance. 12. As a result, we hold that accused Kanaram was rightly convicted under section 302, IPC for causing the murder of Lakhmaram and under Section 302/34, t.P.C. for the murder of Shivram. 13. It was next argued by the learned amicus curiae that many persons named in the First Information Report were not examined by the prosecution and that makes the entire prosecution story highly doubtful. We are unable to accept his contention. As many as five persons named in the F.I.R. have been examined as prosecution witnesses. 13. It was next argued by the learned amicus curiae that many persons named in the First Information Report were not examined by the prosecution and that makes the entire prosecution story highly doubtful. We are unable to accept his contention. As many as five persons named in the F.I.R. have been examined as prosecution witnesses. The other persons named in the First Information Report are the close relatives of the deceased-victims just as are the five eye witnesses examined by the prosecution. In these circumstances the non-examination of the remaining relative witnesses is not of any importance and does not speak adversely against the prosecution. 14. It was next argued that other residents of the village were not examined and thus the independent witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution. We again find no merit in the contention. All the five witnesses have deposed that the houses of the other persons are situate a little distance away and none of them was present at the scene of occurrence. In these circumstances the non-examination of the other residents of the village is of no material consequence. More over, it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine all the witnesses. Only those witnesses who are required to unfold the prosecution case should be examined. 15. As a result, we hold that accused Kana was rightly convicted under section 302, I.P.C. for causing the murder of Lakhmaram and under section 302/34 for the murder of Shivram. 16. As regards the offence under section 324 I.P.C., there is consistent evidence of the five eye witnesses that accused-appellant struck a blow of Farsi on the back of PW 1 Ganpat lal. 17. For the reasons discussed above, the conviction of accused-appellant Kana under section 302, 302/34 and 324, I.P.C. and the sentence awarded there under are maintained. There is no force in his appeal. 18. In the result, the appeal of accused Kana is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******