Judgment Mohd. Yamin, J.-This is an appeal against the Judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Hanumangarh by which he convicted the appellant Samsher Singh for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In case of default of payment of fine the appellant was ordered to undergo S.I. for three months. 2. Thecase of the prosecution is that on 21-12-1988 Mahima Singh made an oral report at Police Station, Tibi at 6.30 p.m. to the effect that enmity between his family members and Samsher Singh was existing due to old litigation between the parties. His father Ajayab Singh had gone to Ganganagar in order to attend Court proceedings on 19-12-1988. He returned on the evening of 21-12-1988. The informant was waiting at Talwara Jhil Bus Stand. His father Ajayab Singh returned by the bus which arrived at 5 p.m. then he was asked by his father to go to the market. Ajayab Singh went away to the village. It was thither stated in the FIR that Samsher Singh, covered with a blanket, was standing at the bus stand from before. As soon as Ajayab Singh started, Samsher Singh chased him. Informant Mahima Singh had a doubt, therefore, he also followed them. As soon as Ajayab Singh reached in front of flour mill of Ramjilal, accused appellant threw his blanket and brought out Gandasi which he was having in his hand and speedily following Samsher Singh, inflicted a Gandasi blow on his head. At that time Ajayab Singh was on the side of Narayan Pandey’s house. He fell down. The informant Mahima Singh made hue and cry. it were Mikhail Singh, Virsha Singh and Dhukar Singh who immediately came there. it was further mentioned in the FIR that when Samsher Singh fell down, the accused appellant inflicted three Gandasi blows’ on his head. The incident had taken place at about 5.15 p.m. These persons tried to catch hold Samsher Singh but latter waving the Gandasi towards them, ran away. By that time, Ajayab Singh had expired. When Mahima Singh was going towards the police check post at Talwara Jheel, constable Kanwar Singh met him in the way. Then Kanwar Singh was left near the dead body, Mahima Singh went to She police station to report the matter FIR No. 235/88 for the offence under Section 302, IPC was registered. By that time, Ajayab Singh had expired. When Mahima Singh was going towards the police check post at Talwara Jheel, constable Kanwar Singh met him in the way. Then Kanwar Singh was left near the dead body, Mahima Singh went to She police station to report the matter FIR No. 235/88 for the offence under Section 302, IPC was registered. During the investigation, the SHO reached at the site and prepared site plan Exhibit-P/2 along with memo of the site plan which is Exhibit-P/2-A. A blood stained brick was recovered vide Exhibit-P13, blanket vide Exhibit-P14. Panchayatnama Exhibit-P15 was prepared. Blood stained clothes of deceased were recovered vide Exhibit-P/6. Control soil as well as blood smeared soil were seized vide Exhibit-P12, Gandasi was recovered on 28-12-1988 vide Exhibit-P/12 at the instance of the accused appellant after he had made a disclosure statement under 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Site plan of the place of recovery of Gandasi was also prepared which is (sic) Post mortem of dead body of deceased was conducted on 22-12-1988. The articles seized were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. Accused appellant was arrested on 27-12-1988 vide Exhibit-P/3 1. On the basis of disclosure statement P/32 Gandasi was recovered on 28-12-1988 at 10.30 a.m. After investigation the challan was submitted before the Magistrate, having jurisdiction. The case was then committed by the Magistrate to the learned Sessions Judge who framed charge under Section 302, IPC against the appellant on 2 1-4-1989. Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Accused appellant was examined under Section 313, CrPC His defence was that the witnesses have falsely implicated him and the deceased and accused had a litigation under Section 307, IPC which resulted into compromise. The deceased was facing trial in some criminal cases with so many persons and someone having enmity with him might have committed his murder. He did not produce any witness in defence. The learned Sessions Judge then, after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that PW 2 Milkha Singh, PW 3 Virsa Singh, PW 4 Mahaveer did not support the case of prosecution though the prosecution produced them as eyewitnesses. According to him prosecution relies on Mahima Singh. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that PW 2 Milkha Singh, PW 3 Virsa Singh, PW 4 Mahaveer did not support the case of prosecution though the prosecution produced them as eyewitnesses. According to him prosecution relies on Mahima Singh. He submitted that he is the real son of the deceased and his version is doubtful. He mentioned in FIR Exhibit-P/i that he had gone to Talwara Jhil to fetch his father but he did not know from before that his father would return and, therefore, he could not have been an eyewitness to the occurrence. His conduct has been assailed on the ground that though a tractor belonging to him was present at the bus stand, yet he did not go on tractor to Police Station. He has been telling lies after lies as no tractor was found on the place of occurrence. According to this witness accused appellant inflicted only 4 injuries while the post-mortem report of deceased shows that as many as 6 injuries were found on the body of Ajayab Singh. He also submitted that Dhukar Singh PW 9 also could not have been an eyewitness of the occurrence as he said that he was sitting at the shop of one Prakash but the site plan Exhibit-P/2 does not show the shop of Prakash. He has also submitted that presence of PW 8 Kanwar Singh is doubtful as he says that he had gone after locking the outpost which was not possible. He has also submitted that though allegation of the prosecution is that the recovery of Gandasi was made at the instance of the accused appellant on his disclosure statement but it does not correct the accused appellant with crime as it did not contain any blood stains and secondly it has been recovered after about 7 days of the occurrence. Accused appellant would not keep it as a trophy in order to involve himself for such a long period. He has, therefore, submitted that the accused appellant deserves acquittal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that death of Ajayab Singh is homicidal. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. He has, therefore, submitted that the accused appellant deserves acquittal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that death of Ajayab Singh is homicidal. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. He relied on 1990 CriLR (SC) 350: 1990 CriLJ 1269 (Anvaruddin vs. Shakoor) in which it has been observed that ordinarily close relatives of the deceased would not allow the real culprits to escape. PW 1 Mahima Singh lodged FIR Exhibit-P/1. It mentioned that parties were inimical and his father Ajayab Singh was to return from Sriganganagar and, therefore, he was present at the bus stand. His father descended from the bus at 5 p.m. and started towards the village. At that time he saw that, Samsher Singh followed his father. He also followed them as he was suspicious about the intention of the accused appellant. Accused appellant who had covered himself by a blanket, threw the same and then attacked on Ajayab Singh from his back with the Gandasi. Informant Mahima Singh made hue and cry then Milkha Singh, Virsa Singh and Dhukar Singh came. Thereafter Samsher Singh fell down. The accused appellant again inflicted three gandasi blows on his head. It was tried to apprehend Samsher Singh but latter waiving gandasi towards him ran away with it. He was going towards police chauki then constable Kanwan Singh met in the way which was left at the site and the witness went to the police station to report the matter. The FIR was prompt. PW 1 Mahima Singh has stated that there was old litigation between his family and the accused appellant. Argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Mahima Singh PW 1 could not have gone to the bus stand on that evening as he did not know that the father would return from Sriganganagar, is not tenable. Mahima Singh was cautious to protect his father because there was enmity between appellant and his family. His presence at the Talwara Jheel Bus Stand is natural in the facts and circumstances of the case. It hardly matters, if Ajayab Singh had not informed him as to when he was to return from Sriganganagar. The witness was concerned about the safe return of his father. Therefore he had gone to bus stand. 7. Mahima Singh found accused appellant Samsher Singh at the bus stand. It hardly matters, if Ajayab Singh had not informed him as to when he was to return from Sriganganagar. The witness was concerned about the safe return of his father. Therefore he had gone to bus stand. 7. Mahima Singh found accused appellant Samsher Singh at the bus stand. Since it was a cold weather the date of occurrence being 2 1-12-1988, it was natural that Samsher Singh would be wearing woolen blanket. As soon as Samsher Singh saw Ajayab Singh he chased him. Mahima Singh saw that accused appellant threw his blanket and unaware of the presence of the witness, attacked on Ajayab Singh from behind. The attack was sudden and so fatal that Ajayab Singh immediately fell down. Mahima Singh would naturally make hue and cry. Then three persons came. Accused appellant again inflicted three or four blows on the head of Ajayab Singh. When the witnesses tried to apprehend him he wanted to attack on the witnesses. Then accused appellant ran away with the Gandasi. Mahima Singh went towards the police check post but since Kanwar Singh met in the way, he left him at the site and went to police station to report the matter. On cross-examination nothing could be elicited by which we may conclude that he was not present at the spot. His absence cannot be probablised as it was very natural on his part that he would try to protect his father. FIR is corroborated by his statement. It has been contended that enmity is a double-edged weapon and the witnesses have falsely implicated the accused appellant on account of enmity. But this argument cannot be accepted as PW 1 Mahima Singh is the real son of the deceased, is supported by another eye witness Dhukar Singh PW 9, brother of deceased who would not implicate a wrong culprit. Kanwar Singh PW 8 is an independent witness who cannot be disbelieved. 8. It has been strenuously submitted that the witnesses have stated that the accused appellant threw his rug but the description of the rug which was recovered by the police from the spot does not tally with the description of the rug by which he had muffled himself It is not a material thing which may create doubt so far as the occurrence is concerned. From the statements of Mahima Singh and Dhukar Singh it is proved that it was accused and accused alone who had attacked on Ajayab Singh with the gandasi and murdered him. PW 2 Milkha Singh and PW 3 Virsha Singh whose name were mentioned in the FIR have turned hostile. PW 2 Milkha Singh does admit that he had descended from the bus at Talwara Jhil. He has further stated that he and Ajayab Singh were co-passengers in the bus but he does not support the version of the prosecution that it was accused appellant who attacked on Ajayab Singh. In the ordinary circumstances he must have seen the occurrence. PW 3 Virsha Singh was very near to the place of occurrence. He is the real brother of Milltha Singh. His house is situated near the place of occurrence. His presence may be natural but he is not supporting the case of the prosecution. These two hostile witnesses know the accused appellant very well and also know the result of enmity of accused with Ajayab Singh. They might be afraid of appellant accused and, therefore, they have not supported the case of prosecution. In villages people are known to each other more closely than cities. Therefore, the trend of even eyewitnesses is that they try to avoid deposing against the culprits who belong to their area or to the nearby areas. Mahaveer PW 4 is the witness who was present at the flour mill of Ramjilal. He has admitted that he was grinding wheat at the flour mill. So his presence at the place of occurrence might be natural but he has also not supported the case of the prosecution. The reason appears to be the same which applies to earlier two hostile witnesses. 9. PW9 Dhukar Singh is the real brother of Ajayab Singh, Ajayab Singh used to look after the cases of Dhukar Singh and another brother as against the appellant. From his statement we find that he had came to the shop of Prakash Chand in order to settle account with regard to rice purchased by him. He heard noise from the side of the flour mill of Ramji Lal. He immediately went towards the site and found that his brother Ajayab Singh was lying near the telephone pole. He saw accused appellant inflicting gandasi blow on the head of Ajayab Singh. He heard noise from the side of the flour mill of Ramji Lal. He immediately went towards the site and found that his brother Ajayab Singh was lying near the telephone pole. He saw accused appellant inflicting gandasi blow on the head of Ajayab Singh. He has stated that Milkha Singh, Virsha Singh and Mahima Singh were already present at the site and when Virsha Singh and Milkha Singh apprehended the appellant, he (appellant) tried to wave gandasi in the air and then he ran away with it. Thereafter a police constable came. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while preparing the site plan the investigating officer did not show the shop of Prakash in the site plan. Therefore, we do not know how far the shop was, and if the witness could hear shrieks. There is no reason to disbelieve Dhukar Singh on this point when according to him the shop of Prakash is situated very near to the place of occurrence. He did hear cries and then only he rushed. We have read the statement of this witness with caution and we find that he is a reliable witness. So the two witnesses i.e. PW 1 Mahima Singh and PW 9 Dhukar Singh are the witnesses of sterling worth. We do not find any infirmity in their statements. There appears to be no reason why these witnesses will allow real culprit to escape. (See Anvaruddin vs. Shakoor, (1990 CriLJ 1269) (supra). 10. PW 8 Kanwar Singh who is a police constable is naming Mahima Singh who met him and told that Samsher Singh had murdered his father near the flour mill of Ramjilal and he was going to police station. There upon this witness went to the site and found dead body of Ajayab Singh. According to him Dhukar Singh was also present. PW 8 Kanwar Singh after going back to out post made the entry Exhibit-P/16 in Rojnamcha which corroborates that when he descended from the bus at Talwara Jhil Bus Stand he found a crowd and he wanted to go towards it. It was Mahima Singh who met him and narrated that Samsher Singh had killed his father near the flour mill of Ramjilal and that he was going to police station. Then Kanwar Singh reached at the site to protect the dead body on the site. It was Mahima Singh who met him and narrated that Samsher Singh had killed his father near the flour mill of Ramjilal and that he was going to police station. Then Kanwar Singh reached at the site to protect the dead body on the site. It also further proves the presence of the witnesses on the site and presence of PW 1 Mahima Singh who had informed him about the occurrence. Thus, this independent witness Kanwar Singh proves the presence of Ajayab Singh PW 1 as well as of Dhukar Singh PW 9. They all corroborate each other. PW 8 Kanwar Singh has been criticised by the learned counsel for the accused appellant on the ground that he has stated that he had locked the police out post while going on duty but no such mention is made in Rojnamcha. The witness has explained that at that time no other foot constable was present at the outpost and since he was to go for service of summons he might have done so. That was in the morning. This fact is not relevant. The witness was present at 4.50 p.m. at the place of occurrence. His presence is accepted by other eye witnesses and is corroborated by FIR which is very prompt. 11. Now we will take up recoveries. The recovery of the blanket of the accused appellant from the nearby place proves that the accused appellant was present. According to the case of the prosecution gandasi was recovered at the instance of appellant on the basis of disclosure statement after seven days. The recovery memo Exhibit-P/12 itself mentions that the blood stains were removed while cleansing the gandasi by soil/water. Exhibit-P133 FSL report also does not help the prosecution because no blood was found on the gandasi. But the fact remains that the gandasi was recovered at the instance of accused appellant on 28-12-1988. It is undisputed that the accused appellant was arrested on 27-12-1988. The late recovery of the gandasi in the circumstances is not material when the accused himself was apprehended on 27-12-1988. The investigating officer could not have dreamt the presence of gandasi unless the accused appellant gave information during the investigation on 28-12-1988. The fact was within the special knowledge of the accused appellant. He gave information of this fact. It was recorded as Exhibit-P132 and the gandasi was recovered vide Exhibit-P112. The investigating officer could not have dreamt the presence of gandasi unless the accused appellant gave information during the investigation on 28-12-1988. The fact was within the special knowledge of the accused appellant. He gave information of this fact. It was recorded as Exhibit-P132 and the gandasi was recovered vide Exhibit-P112. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that he would not keep the gandasa for a long period. But it is not tenable because he had hidden it beneath the heap of thatch in his residential house. This place was also within the special knowledge of the accused appellant and none else could have reached there. The citation reported in 1986 CriLR (Raj) 253, Ram Singh vs. State of Rajasthan does not apply on the facts of this case because in the citation besides, the late recovery of weapon of offence of crime, the statements of eye witnesses were not reliable and trustworthy and independent witnesses were not examined and prosecution in the circumstances of that case was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 12. In view of the above discussion we maintain the conviction of appellant. The appeal is hereby dismissed.