JUDGMENT B. P. Singh, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 11-8-1979 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in S.T.N. 131 of 1979 State v. Pratap Singh and another under section 302 and 302/34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, as was unfolded in the FIR Ext. Ka-1 and the evidence of Smt. Sumitra Devi PW 1, may briefly be stated as follows : Uma Shanker the deceased was the husband of Smt.Sumitra Devi PW 1. Munni Devi PW 2 is the daughter while Urbesh PW 4 is the son of the deceased. Accused Pratap Singh is the real brother of the deceased. Accused Girish Chand is the son of accused Pratap Singh. 3. Pratap Singh and deceased Uma Shanker had separated and their houses and cultivable land were partitioned before the occurrence of this case. The house of Uma Shanker had the main opening towards the north and had also the door in the southern wall. Towards north of the house was the Gher of Uma Shanker. One plot of PRATAP Singh was adjacent to the house of Uma Shanker in the east. Fifteen-twenty days prior to the occurrence of this case, PRATAP Singh had planted some Kathal plants in one Bigha of land which was towards east of the house of Uma Shaker. The house of the accused is at a distance of about one furlong while the house of Satish Singh, another brother of Uma Shanker, was adjacent to the west of Uma Shanker's house. 4. On 9-9-1977 it was about 12 in the noon when Uma Shanker had Just started taking his meals inside his house. His wife Smt.Sumitra Devi PW 1, unmarried daughter Munni Devi and young son Urbesh were also there. Accused Pratap Singh and Girish Chand entered the house and started abusing Uma Shanker Girish Chand was armed with his father's licensed single barrel gun. ON hearing abuses of the accused. Uma Shanker came out of his house in the Gher. His wife, son and daugher also followed. Both the accused were giving out that the cattle of Uma Shanker had eaten away Kathal plants from field of Pratap Singh. Uma Shanker refuted the allegation and gave out that be was not aware as to who had eaten the plants of Pratap Singh. Pratap Singh exhorted his son to kill Uma Shanker. Both the accused were giving out that the cattle of Uma Shanker had eaten away Kathal plants from field of Pratap Singh. Uma Shanker refuted the allegation and gave out that be was not aware as to who had eaten the plants of Pratap Singh. Pratap Singh exhorted his son to kill Uma Shanker. Upon this Girish Chand fired upon Uma Shanker. Uma Shanker stepped away and pushed Pratap Singh. Pratap Singh was hit by the bullet. Pratap Singh then said to his son that he had shot him and that Uma Shanker should be killed. Girish Chand fired another short and the bullet hit Uma Shanker in the chest. Uma Shanker fell down on the ground Girish Chand took up the used cartridge from the ground and both the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. The above occurrence was witnessed by Smt.Sumitra Devi PW-1, Munni Devi PW 2 and Urbesh PW 3. 5. After a short while a number of villagers assembled in the Gher of Uma Shanker. Uma Shanker was placed upon a cot in the Gher. As soon as Uma Shanker was placed upon the cot, he breathed his last. 6. After one and a half hours, Smt. Sumitra Devi PW 1 got a report. Ext. Ka-1. scribed by her son Urbesh. This report was handed over by Smt. Sumitra Devi PW 1 in P S. Aliganj at 5 P.M. Head Constable Ram Singh PW 3. who was posted as Constable Clerk in P. S. Aliganj in September. 1977. had received the written report Ext. Ka-1 from Smt. Sumitra Devi PW 1 and had prepared a FIR Ext Ka-2 and had also made G. D. entry Ext Ka-3 A special report of the occurrence was sent to the Headquarters under G. D. entry Ext. Ka-4. S.I. Janardan Arora PW 5, who was posted in P. S. Aliganj in September, 1977 was entrusted with the investigation of this case and he was present at the Police Station when the case was registered. 7. S. I. Janardan Arora PW 5 started the investigation as soon as the case was registered and recorded the statements of H. C. Ram Singh and Smt. Sumitra Devi. 7. S. I. Janardan Arora PW 5 started the investigation as soon as the case was registered and recorded the statements of H. C. Ram Singh and Smt. Sumitra Devi. Thereafter, he left for the place of occurrence and reached there at about 6.30 P.M. He found that the dead body of Uma Shanker was lying upon a cot under the Jamun and Sheesham tree. After appointing Panches inquest proceedings were conducted by the Investigating Officer and inquest report Ext. Ka-5, Naksha Laash Ext. Ka-6, Challan Laash Ext. Ka-7 were prepared and the dead body was sealed under the specimen seal Ext. Ka-8. The local inspection was made by the Investigating Officer and the site plan Ext. Ka-2 was duly prepared. The samples of the plain and blood stained earth were also taken by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence and sealed in two tins Exts. Ka-3 and 4, under the recovery memo Ext. Ea-10. 8. On the same night, the Investigating Officer had arrested accused Pratap Singh but accused Girish Chand was not available. A search of the house of these two accused was made under the search memo Ext. Ka-11. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer returned to the Police Station alongwith the recovered material and accused Pratap Singh. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet Ext. Ka-13 was submitted in the case. At the trial both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. In all, the prosecution examined, eight witnesses, Smt.Sumitra Devi PW 1, Munni Devi PW 2, H. C. Ram Singh PW 3, Urbesh PW 4. S. I. Janardan Arora PW 5, Dr. Virendra Srivastava PW 6, Constable Shyam Singh PW 7 and Dr. M. K. Gupta PW 8, in the case. 10. The accused did not lead any evidence in their defence. The case of the accused Pratap Singh was that on the day of the occurrence it was about 9.10 A.M. when be had gone to his field and had found that the cattle of the deceased Uma Shanker were damaging the newly planted Kathal plants and that the deceased Uma Shanker was present there. When he protested with Uma Shanker, the deceased got up and said that his cattle would graze in the field of Pratap Singh. When he protested with Uma Shanker, the deceased got up and said that his cattle would graze in the field of Pratap Singh. Pratap Singh had abused Uma Shanker upon which Uma Shanker went in his house and came out with a pistol and fired upon Pratap Singh. Pratap Singh was bit in the thigh and in his torn Pratap Singh fired in self defence upon Uma Shanker as a result of which he fell down. Accused Girish Chand pleaded alibi and claimed and he was in Aligarh at his maternal uncle's place when the occurrence had taken piece. Head Constable Ram Singh PW 3 has proved the F.I.R. Ext. Ka-2 and the G D. entries Exts. Ka-3 and Ka-4 S.I. Janardan Arora PW 5 has deposed about the various steps which were taken by him during the course of investigation. He has also proved the papers which were prepared by him. Constable Shyam PW 7 has stated that on 9-9-1977 he was posted in P S. Aligarh on 9th September, 1977 and on that day S. I. Janardan Arora PW 5 had handed over the dead body of Uma Shanker under sealed cover at about 7.30 PM at the place of occurrence, to him and Constable Ram Kumar. He has claimed that he had brought the dead body to Etah in a sealed cover and placed before Dr. Virendra Srivastava the next day for postmortem examination 11. Dr. Virendra Srivastava PW 6, who was posted as the Medical Officer in District Jail, Etah, in September, 1977, had conducted the postmortem examination upon the dead body of Uma Shanker on 10-9-1977. The result of the ante mortem examination was as follows : The deceased was aged about 38 years who had been dead for about 1-1/2 days. Rigor mortis were present in lower limbs but had passed away from the upper limbs. The following antemortem injury was found upon the dead body of Uma Shanker :- "Rounded wound 5 cm x 5 cm just below Xyphisternum. On further dissection liver was found torn into pieces with pellets and wad. Pellets were lodged on right side of the chest wall." 12. On internal examination Dr. Virendra Srivastava PW 6 found that the Gall Bladder was torn into pieces. Thirty-one pellets and a wad were taken out by Dr. On further dissection liver was found torn into pieces with pellets and wad. Pellets were lodged on right side of the chest wall." 12. On internal examination Dr. Virendra Srivastava PW 6 found that the Gall Bladder was torn into pieces. Thirty-one pellets and a wad were taken out by Dr. Virendra Srivastava PW 6 from the dead body and sealed in a packet Ext. 5. The clothes of the deceased was also sealed and were sent to the Police Station concerned. The post-mortem report Ext. Ka-14 was duly prepared by Dr. Virendra Srivastava PW 6. In the opinion of Doctor, the ante mortem injury of Uma Shanker was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and could have been inflicted on 9-9-1977 at 12 O' Clock in the noon. Dr. M. K. Gupta PW 8, who was posted as Medical Officer Incharge in P. H. C. Aligarh, had examined accused Pratap Singh on 10-9-1977 at 7.10 A.M. and had found the following Injuries upon his person ;- "(1) Punctured wounds nine in number average size 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm x depth loss cut deep size in an area of 22 cm x 3 cm on the front of Rt. thigh. The maximum and minimum distance before two under are 6 cm and 2 cm respectively. Margins are lacerated, inverted, echynesed, blackening and tatooing and scorching are absent. (2) Multiple abrasion of size 1 cm x 1/4 cm, 1.5 cm x 1/4 cm, 1 cm x 1/4, 0.75 cm x 0.25 cm in an area 9 cm x 3 cm on the middle lateral side of Rt. thigh." In the opinion of the Dr. M. K. Gupta, PW 8 both the Injuries of Pratap Singh were simple. Injury No. 1 was caused by a fire arm, injury no. 2 was caused by friction and both the injuries were half day old. 13. We have gone through the evidence of these witnesses. The evidence of these witnesses has not been seriously challenged before us. WE also find that there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. There is nothing In the evidence of these witnesses from which it could be inferred that their evidence was either untrustworthy or unreliable. Furthermore, the evidence of these witnesses find corroboration in the documentary evidence on the record and has come into existence at the relevant time. WE also find that there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. There is nothing In the evidence of these witnesses from which it could be inferred that their evidence was either untrustworthy or unreliable. Furthermore, the evidence of these witnesses find corroboration in the documentary evidence on the record and has come into existence at the relevant time. These witnesses are not concerned or connected with either of the parties to the case and, as such, it was highly unlikely that they would depose falsely in the case. 14. The case of the presecution regarding the main occurrence rests upon Smt. Sumitra Devi PW 1, Munni Devi PW 2 and Urbesh PW 4. We have already detailed the version of Smt. Sumitra Devi PW I, the first informant, in the statement of the case and the same need not be repeated here. Both Munni Devi PW 2 and Urbesh PW 4 have corroborated the evidence of Smt. Sumitra Devi PW 1 so far as the main occurrence in which Uma Shanker was killed is concerned. As we have already observed the case of the prosecution is that the occurrence took place inside the Gher of toe deceased Uma Shanker while the contention of the accused was that the occurrence in which Uma Shanker was killed had taken place inside the field of the accused Pratap Singh in which newly planted Kathal plants were damaged. According to the prosecution case the motive is said to be that some stray cattle had grazed and damaged the newly planted Kathal plants of accused Pratap Singh and the accused were under the impression that the cattle of the deceased Uma Shanker were responsible for the damage. On the other hand, the case of the defence is that on the day of the occurrence. It was about 10.00 A.M. when Pratap Singh had gone to his field and saw that the cattle of deceased Uma Shanker were eating the newly planted Kathal plants inside his field while deceased Uma Shanker was sitting nearby. 15. All the three witnesses of fact are emphatic on the point that the occurrence took place inside the Gher of the deceased Uma Shanker. This part of the evidence of these witnesses of fact finds corroboration in the evidence of S. I. Janardan Arora PW 5. 15. All the three witnesses of fact are emphatic on the point that the occurrence took place inside the Gher of the deceased Uma Shanker. This part of the evidence of these witnesses of fact finds corroboration in the evidence of S. I. Janardan Arora PW 5. Investigating Officer Janardan Arora PW 5 had inspected both the Gher of the deceased Uma Shanker and the said plot of the accused Pratap Singh in which the newly planted Kathal plants were damaged. He has insisted in his evidence that he did not find any stain of blood or any sign of any struggle inside the said field of accused Pratap Singh. On the other hand, he has categorically stated that he had found the blood stained earth in the Gher of deceased Uma Shanker and sealed the samples of plain and blood stained earth in two separate tins under the recovery memo Ext. Ka-10. Thus, there is enough evidence on the record to prove that the occurrence took place inside the Gher of deceased Uma Shanker. It may also be mentioned here that no evidence was led by the accused to substantiate their claim that the occurrence took place inside the field of Pratap Singh in which newly planted Kathal plants were damaged. Furthermore, the evidence of Sumitra Devi PW 1, the first informant, finds corroboration in the FIR Ext. Ka-1. Now the FIR in a criminal trial is an important and valuable piece of evidence. The reason Is very simple, The FIR not only sets in motion the machinery of law for the purposes of the investigation of the case, it also gives out the prosecution version of the occurrence at the first available opportunity if the maker happens to be one of the eye-witnesses. Lodging of an FIR by an eyewitness with due promptness and without any inordinate and unexplained delay may lead to the inference that there was no room for outside consultation, as in such cases the chances of embellishment to the main part of the prosecution version of the occurrence are ruled out. In such cases, the possibility of implicating the innocent persons is also minimised to a great extent 16. In the present case, Smt. Sumitra Devi PW 1 has given out the main points of the prosecution version of the occurrence in the FIR which was lodged after about five hours of the occurrence. In such cases, the possibility of implicating the innocent persons is also minimised to a great extent 16. In the present case, Smt. Sumitra Devi PW 1 has given out the main points of the prosecution version of the occurrence in the FIR which was lodged after about five hours of the occurrence. Considering the fact that Smt. Sumitra Devi's husband was murdered and that she had to cover a distance of 7-miles from the place of occurrence in reaching the Police Station, the FIR was lodged without any inordinate delay. An FIR is not expected to contain all the minute details of the occurrence. There are bound to be certain omissions in the FIR specially when the first informant happens to be the widow of an ordinary villager and the FIR is dictated by her shortly after the occurrence. Such omissions considering the mental state of the first informant at that time are only natural. These omissions instead of raising any doubt upon the evidence of the first informant suggest that there was no outside consultation and that the FIR was lodged without there being any outside consultation or deliberation. Smt. Sumitra Devi PW 1 has stated that her husband was standing towards the right of accused Pratap Singh when Oirish Chand had fired the first shot and that her husband had pulled accused Pratap Singh and had himself stepped aside to a place where accused Pratap Singh was standing and that this fact was mentioned by her in the FIR. She has further stated that Khokha (blank catridge) was also mentioned by her in the FIR. These two facts are not mentioned in the FIR. We have carefully examined these omissions in the FIR and we are of the view that no adverse inference can be raised regarding the evidentiary value of the statement of Smt. Sumitra Devi PW 1 17. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that while the case of the prosecution in the FIR Ext. Ka-1 was that Girish Chand had fired upon Sumitra Devi's husband and at that time her husband had pushed Pratap Singh and had himself side-stepped but Smt. Sumitra Devi PW 1 in her cross-examination has stated that her husband had pulled Pratap Singh towards him and had stepped away to the place where Pratap Singh was standing. Ka-1 was that Girish Chand had fired upon Sumitra Devi's husband and at that time her husband had pushed Pratap Singh and had himself side-stepped but Smt. Sumitra Devi PW 1 in her cross-examination has stated that her husband had pulled Pratap Singh towards him and had stepped away to the place where Pratap Singh was standing. Smt. Munni Devi PW 2 and Urbesh PW 4 have stated in their evidence that their father had pushed accused Pratap Singh and had changed position with him. Thus, while the emphasis in the FIR was on giving the push to Pratap Singh, the emphasis in the evidence of Sumitra Devi PW 1 was that Partap Singh was pulled by the deceased and the position was changed between the two. Not much turns upon this inconsistency between the evidence of these witnesses of fact and the recital in the FIR. The main thing was that deceased had changed position with accused Pratap Singh while appellant Girish Chand was in the act of firing. 18. It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that all the three witnesses of fact were close relations of the deceased. It is obvious that being the wife, daughter and son of the deceased these three witnesses of fact are close relation of the deceased. The argument is that all the witnesses of fact being related to and interested in the deceased, no reliance should be placed upon their evidence in the absence of any other independent witness of fact. The argument has no force. It is no doubt true that there are oases when close relatives of the deceased do try to exaggerate or add to the number of actual assailants in a murder trial, but close relationship of the witnesses with the deceased, by itself, cannot be a ground to reject their testimony. The only rule of prudence in such cases is to scrutinise and examine their evidence with great care and caution. When the occurrence took place in broad day light inside the Gher of the deceased in which the door of the residential house of the deceased also opens, his wife, unmarried daughter and minor son were the most natural and likely witnesses of the occurrence. They must be interested in bringing to book the real culprits. When the occurrence took place in broad day light inside the Gher of the deceased in which the door of the residential house of the deceased also opens, his wife, unmarried daughter and minor son were the most natural and likely witnesses of the occurrence. They must be interested in bringing to book the real culprits. They are not expected to permit the real culprits to go free by taking recourse to rope in innocent persons as the assailants of the deceased. It was also contended from the side of the appellants that there were other houses in the close vicinity of the scene of occurrence and no person from those houses had been examined as a witness in the case. This contention has no force for two reasons. Firstly, there is no evidence on the record to show that any neighbour had witnessed the occurrence. Secondly, the accused in this case are none else but the real brother and nephew of the deceased. The general reluctance and apathy of the villagers not to involve themselves in criminal cases where the contesting parties are members of the same family is to be kept in mind. 19. Furthermore, all these three witnesses of fact were cross-examined from the side of the appellant, There are no variations or contradictions in their evidence so far as the main points of the prosecution case are concerned. In our view, these witnesses are truthful witnesses because their evidence inspires confidence. 20. It was also contended from the side of the appellants that there was no sufficient motive for the accused persons to kill deceased Uma Shanker. Motive no doubt is important in a criminal trial, but when there are eye-witnesses of fact, motive loses its significance. Furthermore, there is no hard and fast rule as to how the human beings re-act in specific circumstances. Every man may react differently. The newly planted Kathal plants of the appellants were damaged and their impression was that it was the cattle of deceased Uma Shanker whioh had done so. Both the appellants had gone armed with a gun to remonstrate to the deceased and if appellant Girish Chand took it upon himself to teach the deceased a lesson, there was nothing very surprising about the same. Both the appellants had gone armed with a gun to remonstrate to the deceased and if appellant Girish Chand took it upon himself to teach the deceased a lesson, there was nothing very surprising about the same. We may also point out here that if the defence version was correct that the cattle of the deceased were causing damage to the newly planted Kathal plants, it was highly unlikely that Pratap Singh or Girish Chand would go with a licensed gun to deal with the situation. The deceased was the real brother of Pratap Singh and mere physical presence of the appellant Pratap Singh or Girish Chand upon the place of occurrence would have been enough to turn out the cattle from the field. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the evidence of Dr. Virendra Srivastava PW 6, who had conducted the post-mortem examination upon the dead body of Uma Shanker, there is a recital that semi digested food was found in the stomach. It was contended that this fact was enough to belie the evidence of the witnesses of fact that Uma Shanker had just started taking his meals when he was called by Pratap Singh from outside the house. When the fact that Uma Shanker died as a result of having sustained gun shot wound was not disputed, the stomach content in the dead body was not relevant. It was not very significant if the occurrence had taken place at 12 noon or at 10 O' Clock in the morning. 21. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Pratap Singh had fired upon Uma Shanker in self defence. There is no material on the record from which it could be inferred that the shot was fired by Pratap Singh in self defence. There is only the statement of Pratap Singh under section 313 CrPC and this statement by itself was not enough to provide the basis for such a finding. It was also contended from the side of the appellants that there was no common intention of the appellant Pratap Singh with appellant Girish Chand to commit the murder of Uma Shanker. There is only the statement of Pratap Singh under section 313 CrPC and this statement by itself was not enough to provide the basis for such a finding. It was also contended from the side of the appellants that there was no common intention of the appellant Pratap Singh with appellant Girish Chand to commit the murder of Uma Shanker. When both the appellants had come together in the Gher of the deceased and when Pratap Singh had exhorted his son to kill Uma Shanker, there was enough evidence to come to the conclusion that Girish Chand committed the murder of Uma Shanker in furtherance of the common intention of both the appellants. Furthermore, we may point out that it is not the case where the injuries of Pratap Singh have not been explained. These injuries find explanation in the FIR as well as in the evidence of witnesses of fact. In this view of the matter, this appeal has no force. 22. The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody by the C.J.M. concerned and shall be sent to jail to serve out the sentence which have been imposed upon them by the trial court. Petition dismissed.