(1) THROUGH this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special courts) Act, 1984, the appellant challenges his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Judge, Special court, Ferozepur in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 1985. (2) ON 14/7/1984 while Kundan Singh was sleeping on a cot by the side of his tubewell, his father Mohan Singh, Public Witness 3 and brother Balwinder Singh, PW 4, who were irrigating their fields nearby heard shriek of Kundan Singh, at about 4.00 a.m. and when they reached near his cot, they found the appellant armed with a kirpan and Pargat Singh (since acquitted) armed with a takwa causing injuries to Kundan Singh. An alarm was raised on which the appellant and the acquitted co-accused Pargat Singh fled away. Mohan Singh, Public Witness 3 leaving his son Balwinder Singh, Public Witness 4 by the side of the dead body and taking with him Lachhman Singh Panch, proceeded to the police station. At Village Padhri they met Harbhajan Singh, SHO, Police Station Makhu, Public Witness 5 and informed him of the occurrence, The statement of Mohan Singh, Ext. P-4 was recorded by Harbhajan Singh, Public Witness 5 in Village Padhri itself and the same was sent to the police station for registration of the case. The formal FIR, Ext. P-4/B was drawn up on that basis. SI Harbhajan Singh, Public Witness 5 along with Mohan Singh, Lachhman Singh and others proceeded to the spot and took the investigation in hand. Inquest report was prepared and the dead body of Kundan Singh was then sent for post-mortem examination which was performed by Dr V.K. Khurana, Public Witness 1. (3) IT is further the case of the prosecution that Smt Sito, wife of Balwinder Singh, Public Witness 4, was suspected to be having illicit relations with Puran Singh, appellant. This illicit relationship was resented to by Balwinder Singh, Public Witness 4 and his brother Klindan Singh, deceased. Kundan Singh deceased had often told Puran Singh. appellant, to stop his liaison with the wife of his brother Balwinder Singh, Public Witness 4. Puran Singh, appellant bore a grudge against Kundan Singh on that account. This illicit relationship was resented to by Balwinder Singh, Public Witness 4 and his brother Klindan Singh, deceased. Kundan Singh deceased had often told Puran Singh. appellant, to stop his liaison with the wife of his brother Balwinder Singh, Public Witness 4. Puran Singh, appellant bore a grudge against Kundan Singh on that account. (4) THE prosecution with a view to connect the appellant with the crime examined Dr V.K. Khurana, Public Witness I, Bura Ram Patwari, Public Witness 2, Mohan Singh, PW 3, Balwinder Singh, Public Witness 4 and Harbhajan Singh, Public Witness 5, Investigating Officer. The reports of the chemical examiner and the serologist, as also the affidavits of Lachhman Singh and other formal witnesses were tendered in evidence. The trial court after an analysis of the evidence acquitted Pargat Singh giving him the benefit of the doubt. The appellant, however, was convicted for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. (5) WITH the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the evidence on the record. Public Witness 3 and Public Witness 4. the father and brother of the deceased, have given an eyewitness account of the occurrence. Both of them have made consistent statements regarding the manner in which they heard the shriek of Kundan Singh, while they were irrigating their fields and on reaching the spot found the appellant causing injuries to the deceased. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination which could in any way affect their veracity or taint their reliability. From a close scrutiny of their evidence, we find that both Mohan Singh, Public Witness 3 and Balwinder Singh, Public Witness 4 appear to be witnesses of truth and their evidence inspires confidence. The medical evidence of Dr V.K. Khurana, Public Witness I, shows that the deceased had suffered 6 incised wounds. Injury 1, which was an incised wound of 15 cms x 14 cms on the junction of thorax with neck and had cut through and through the tissues of the neck i.e., muscles, blood vessels, nerves, trachea, oesophagus and vertebral column. That injury was opined to be, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (6) MR R.C. Kohli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the prosecution version that the occurrence took place at about 4.00 a.m. has been belied by the medical evidence. That injury was opined to be, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (6) MR R.C. Kohli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the prosecution version that the occurrence took place at about 4.00 a.m. has been belied by the medical evidence. Learned counsel submitted that from the evidence of Dr V.K. Khurana it transpires that stomach of the deceased contained partially digested food and since the doctor had admitted in his cross- examination that food leaves the stomach after about six hours, the occurrence could not have taken place at 4.(X) a.m. but much earlier. We cannot agree. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence on the record to show as to what was the type of food which was consumed by the deceased, which necessarily is a factor relevant to determine the time within which it would be digested besides the digestive system of an individual. Dr Khurana himself opined "that the stomach contained small quantity of partially digested food" and in the cross-examination stated that "the food would leave the stomach after about six hours". The presence of "small quantity of partially digested food" cannot lead to any inference that the occurrence could not have taken place at about 4.00 a.m. Balwinder Singh. Public Witness 4, stated during his cross-examination that normally they take dinner at about 8.00 or 9.00 p.m. Thus, even if it be assumed that the deceased took his food at about 9.00 p.m.. the presence of a small quantity of partially digested food therefore does not militate against the occurrence having taken place at about 4.00 a.m. (7) LEARNED counsel then submitted that since the prosecution had not examined any other independent witness, apart from the father and the brother of the deceased, it would not be safe to convict the appellant. This submission also does not appeal to us. Merely because the witnesses are relations of the deceased, their evidence does not become suspect. It only puts the court on its guard to scrutinise their evidence carefully. The testimony of Public Witness 3 and Public Witness 4 bears our judicial scrutiny. Moreover, there is no material on the record to show that any independent witness was available near about who the prosecution could have examined but chose not to examine. It only puts the court on its guard to scrutinise their evidence carefully. The testimony of Public Witness 3 and Public Witness 4 bears our judicial scrutiny. Moreover, there is no material on the record to show that any independent witness was available near about who the prosecution could have examined but chose not to examine. No suggestion was given to any of the witnesses during their cross-examination that there were other persons available in the neighbouring fields. It is, therefore, not possible for us to hold that independent witnesses, though available, were not examinee by the prosecution. (8) THE next submission of Mr Kohli that since the kassis (spades) with which Public Witness 3 and Public Witness 4 were irrigating their fields were not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer, the prosecution case had been rendered doubtful, is also devoid of any merit. Both Public Witness 3 and Public Witness 4 stated in their evidence that they had left the spades in the field. They had stated so during the investigation also. No adverse inference can therefore be drawn by the omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to take the spades into possession. Such like lapses of the Investigation Officer do not detract from the reliability of the prosecution case particularly when the spades were not a part of any case property. (9) THE argument of Mr Kohli that the cases of Pargat Singh, since acquitted, and Kundan Singh, appellant were identical and the trial court was not justified in denying the benefit of doubt to the appellant also needs a mention only to be rejected. Apart from the evidence of Public Witness 3 and Public Witness 4, we find from the record that the appellant made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and led to the recovery of a kirpan which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. P-7. According to the report of the serologist, the bloodstains on the kirpan were of human origin. This recovery of the bloodstained kirpan on the disclosure statement of the appellant provides enough corroboration to the prosecution evidence against the appellant. The trial court while dealing with the case of Pargat Singh found such corroboration totally missing. The trial court therefore acquitted Pargat Singh by giving him the benefit of doubt. This recovery of the bloodstained kirpan on the disclosure statement of the appellant provides enough corroboration to the prosecution evidence against the appellant. The trial court while dealing with the case of Pargat Singh found such corroboration totally missing. The trial court therefore acquitted Pargat Singh by giving him the benefit of doubt. The conviction and sentence of the appellant as recorded by the trial court, In our opinion, is well merited and calls for no interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to be taken into custody to undergo the remaining period of the sentence.