JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.7.1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bhilwara whereby accused-Bhairu Lal has been convicted for offence Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000, in default of payment whereof, to further undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. Both these appeals have been filed assailing aforesaid judgment dated 4.7.1997 by the accused-appellant-Bhairu Lal. One has been forwarded through Superintendent of the Jail and other has been filed through his Advocate, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The charges against the accused-appellant are that at about 3.30 p.m. on 11.8.1996 in Bhilwara township, in the temple of Balaji situated at Paldi road, he stabbed to death Pappu Singh @ Bhanwar Singh. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, therefore, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. In his statements u/s. 313, Cr.P.C., accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleading that he has been falsely framed. No evidence was produced in defence and the learned Trial Court, after relying upon testimony of PW-1 Bajrang Singh, PW-3 Devkaran and that of PW-11 Surendra Kumar, supported by medical evidence as also recovery of blood-stained clothes and steering wheel cover & key ring of Maruti car; convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as stated above. 4. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this was a blind murder and there were no eye-witnesses of the occurrence and that the accused-appellant had been implicated on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures. The clothes and other articles allegedly recovered from the accused though w9re sent for chemical examination yet no report was sought from the FSL and there were material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and despite material omissions and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses, accused-appellant has been convicted. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and conviction. 5. We have carefully scanned and shifted the prosecution evidence and, to our utter surprise, found that at the time of arrest, pant and shirt worn by the accused-appellant were found blood stained, which were seized and sealed vide memo Ex.P/15. Similarly, Maruti car which was being driven by the accused, was also seized immediately after the occurrence vide seizure memo Ex.P/17. Similarly, Maruti car which was being driven by the accused, was also seized immediately after the occurrence vide seizure memo Ex.P/17. The cover of the steering wheel of the car as also key ring were also smeared with blood, which were seized and sealed then and there. All these articles along with blood-stained clothes of the deceased, were deposited first in the Malkhana of the Police Station same day, in sealed condition and thereafter, were deposited with the FSL with seals intact vide receipt Ex.P/21, sent through PW-17 Babu Mohammed, on 20.8.1996 yet without waiting for the report of chemical examination, accused was charged on 6.11.1996 and in a hot hurry, prosecution evidence was closed on 27.6.1997, thereby an important piece of evidence was not procured. 6. It was expected from the trial Court to have procured report from the FSL. If it was not forthcoming, the same should have been procured by writing DO letter to the Director, FSL. Be that as it may, simply because report of chemical examination on the above articles was not sought that by itself will not weaken the prosecution case. Had it been procured, it would also have thrown some light on the verasity and may have corroborated to some extent the prosecution case. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel is not tenable in the wake of other evidence available on the record. 7. The occurrence took place at about 3.50 p.m. on 11.8.1996 at the temple of Tanki-ke-Balaji. A phone call was made by some unknown person to Police Station Subhash Nagar at 3.50 p.m. that at Paldi road, inside Tanki-ke-Balaji temple, after committing murder of a person, the culprit escaped through a Maruti car No. GJ 5A 9219. The above information was recorded in the Daily Diary of the Police Station at serial No. 546. Thereafter, PW-15 Dalu Ram Sahu, SHO, along with Mahesh Chandra, ASI; Surender Kumar, Head Constable and other staff, immediately proceeded towards place of incident and found Pappu Singh @ Bhanwar Singh dead in a pool of blood, who was-identified by Gopal Singh, Constable. The above information was recorded in the Daily Diary of the Police Station at serial No. 546. Thereafter, PW-15 Dalu Ram Sahu, SHO, along with Mahesh Chandra, ASI; Surender Kumar, Head Constable and other staff, immediately proceeded towards place of incident and found Pappu Singh @ Bhanwar Singh dead in a pool of blood, who was-identified by Gopal Singh, Constable. Immediately thereafter, PW-15 Dalu Ram Sahu prepared his own 'parcha bayan' Ex.P/2Z and forwarded the same through Constable Ghanshyam to the Police Station for registering the offence and simultaneously, send wireless messages to all the Police outposts to make 'nakabandi' and deputed Surendra Kumar, Head Constable and Mohammed Sayeed, Constable, to do nakabandi at Ajmer road and search for the Maruti car. Within 20 minutes, PW-9 Mohammed Sayeed 4nd.PW-11 Surendra Kumar at the police out-post on Ajmer road noticed a speedy white Maruti car of above number (GJ 5A 9219), which was stopped. The car was being driven by accused-appellant-Bhairu Lal, whose clothes were blood-stained, therefore, he was detained along with the car and the SHO was informed. 8. The accused-appellant-Bhairu Lal was put under arrest at 7.30 p.m. vide Ex.P/16, his blood-stained clothes (pant & shirt) were also seized and sealed at 7.45 p.m. vide Ex.P/15 and Maruti car No. GJ 5A 9219 was also seized. The. blood smeared steering wheel cover as also key-ring of the car were also seized and sealed at 8.00 p.m. vide Ex.P/17. A disclosure statement (Ex.P/25) u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act was also given by the accused on 12.8.1996 at 12.30 p.m. by which he wanted to get the knife recovered from the well situated near place of occurrence. In pursuance of that, in the presence of Govind Singh and Kishan, police got a knife recovered from the well, which was seized and sealed then and there vide memo Ex.P/2. 9. Learned Trial Court has relied upon above documentary and oral evidence which we have briefly mentioned in order to correctly appreciate the rival contentions. 10. Though, in the FIR, it seemed to be a blind murder but it was found that at the time of occurrence, in the temple there was Pujari named Haridas as also two other persons, who came to pay obeisance to the deity. One of them later on was found to be PW-1 Bajrang Singh and other, a mochi boy, could not be identified. One of them later on was found to be PW-1 Bajrang Singh and other, a mochi boy, could not be identified. However, PW-3 Devkaran was also found near the site and therefore, they were also interrogated. 11. Mr. Garg, learned counsel submitted that temple Pujari Haridas though has been interrogated during the investigation but not examined in the Court which affects the prosecution version adversely. We have perused the file which revealed that time and again summons were issued for Haridas but every time summons were returned with endorsement that he has left the temple and his whereabouts were not known. It has also come to record that Haridas was employed in the temple only a day before the occurrence. Similarly, at the time of occurrence, he was in his room and was attracted to the site subsequently. In the above circumstances, if Haridas could not be examined, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution because they have done everything possible to procure his presence. 12. PW-1 Bajrang Singh has supported the prosecution case and has implicated the accused-appellant deposing thereby that at the time-of occurrence along with deceased, he was sitting in the temple when at about 3.30 p.m. accused came on a Maruti car at the temple and started abusing deceased, gave him few slaps and when deceased resisted, accused drew a knife from his trouser and stabbed the deceased who started bleeding. It has also been stated by Bajrang Singh that accused was wearing yellow colour shirt and a stripped trouser, which also get smeared with blood. This witness has been put to lengthy cross-examination but could not be contradicted in material particulars in his statements u/s. 161, Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/1) or statements u/s. 164, Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/2). There were some omissions in Exs.D/1 and D/2, however, if both the statements Ex.D/1 and D/2 are taken together, no contradiction or omission worth the name can be found in his Court statements. For example, Ex.D/1 it has been mentioned that when deceased was stabbed, he cried "mar diya, mar diya" whereas this fact was missing in Ex.D/2, however, in the Court this witness stated that after being stabbed, deceased cried "mar diya, mar diya".Similarly, it has not been mentioned in Ex.D/1 that at the time of occurrence, this witness went in the temple for reciting the prayers; above fact was found mention in Ex.D/2. According to Ex.D/1, this witness went to the temple for taking bath whereas according to Ex.D/2, this witness after taking bath, went inside the temple and sat there for reciting prayers. In the Court also, the witness stated that he went to the temple for reciting the prayers. Similarly, registration number of Maruti car were mentioned by this witness in the Court statements, however, they were missing in Exs.D/1 and D/2. In Exs.D/1 and D/2, it is also not written that accused stabbed the deceased on left side, however, it has been mentioned in both the statements that accused has stabbed the deceased on stomach. In the Court, this witness stated that deceased was stabbed in the stomach on left side. 13. The trial Court has correctly appreciated and rightly relied upon deposition of this witness as the above omissions/contradictions were not so material as to throw the testimony of this witness over board. There apt to be some insignificant omissions/contradictions in the testimony of natural witnesses. Minor embellishments and trivial discrepancies do not by themselves render the witness unbelievable. Hairsplitting of the evidence ought not to be undertaken, instead, totality of the situation ought to have been viewed, which the learned Trial Court has done. 14. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, assailed the testimony of this witness because he was a distant cousin of the deceased. That plea is also not tenable because testimony of the relative or interested witness can not be given a go-bye or doubted, simply because he happened to a distant relative of the deceased. It is the intrinsic value of a particular witness which inspires confidence, is to be looked into because no relative of the deceased will like to leave the real culprit and implicate on innocent. The Apex Court has held in Lila Ram v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525 , State of Himachal Pradesh v. Leklaraj, (2000) 1 SCC 247 , among others can be referred to. 15. Another objection of learned counsel Mr. Garg is that had Bajrang Singh been present at the site, he ought to have informed the Police immediately and may have been examined by the Police at the earliest opportunity. We have also considered this aspect of the matter. 15. Another objection of learned counsel Mr. Garg is that had Bajrang Singh been present at the site, he ought to have informed the Police immediately and may have been examined by the Police at the earliest opportunity. We have also considered this aspect of the matter. When Police came to know of the incident immediately through a telephonic call then it was not necessary for this witness or any other relative of the deceased to go the Police Station for lodging the report. However, PW-1 Bajrang Singh has stated in his cross-examination that accused-Bhairu Lal Gurjar was a notorious person, who stabbed Pappu Singh @ Bhanwar Singh in his presence, therefore, he escaped from the place of occurrence fearing evil consequences. The above apprehension of this witness can not be said to be unfounded. He was not closely related to the deceased, therefore, wanted to remain away. However, he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer on 13.8.1996. He was also examined u/s. 164, Cr.P.C. as the Investigating Officer apprehended that he may, out of fear of accused, go hay-wire. Therefore, above deficiencies and lacuna pointed out by the learned counsel have no bearing on the testimonial value of PW-1 Bajrang Singh, as he has withstood the test of cross-examination. 16. PW-3 Devkaran has also deposed that at the time of occurrence, he was near the water-tank of the temple when he saw a Maruti car going 50 passages away, which stopped at the temple. Out of curiosity, he too went near the temple and saw accused-Bhairu Lal coming out of car, who went in side the temple where Pappu Singh @ Bhanwar Singh was sitting. The witness further stated that accused, to begin with, started abusing deceased and thereafter gave a slap or two and when deceased objected, accused took out a knife from his trouser and stabbed on the right side of stomach by which bleeding started. Thereafter, this witness, being afraid of, ran away from the site. This witness too has been examined at length but could not be contradicted in material particulars with any portion of his Police Statement Ex.D/3. Some immaterial exaggerations have been pointed out to him. Though it has been mentioned in Ex.D/3 that accused came in the temple, abused and slapped was caused to him yet he has been contradicted by his defence counsel. Some immaterial exaggerations have been pointed out to him. Though it has been mentioned in Ex.D/3 that accused came in the temple, abused and slapped was caused to him yet he has been contradicted by his defence counsel. It seems that learned Trial Court has not cared to verify the said contradiction from Ex.D/3 and simply relied upon learned defence counsel, meaning thereby, that there was hardly any exaggeration or contradictory statement made by Devkaran in the Court and therefore, this witness has rightly been held to be of sterling worth by the Court below. 17. Another submission of the learned counsel was that this witness has been examined u/s. 161, Cr.-P.C. on 13.8.1996 i.e. two days after the occurrence. In our view, when witness have not been named in the FIR and due to fear of the accused they are not coming to Police of their own, it is just possible that a few days' delay in recording their police statement may occur and that will not affect their testimonial value. In State of U.P. v. Sikand, 1998 (2) Crimes (SC) 99 , there was 24 days' delay in recording statements u/s. 161, Cr.P.C. Similarly, in Ramesh v. State of M.P., JT 1999(6) SC 627 , there was delay of 5 days in recording statements of PW-1 and PW-2 u/s. 161, Cr.P.C. and the Apex Court was of the view that delay ipso facto can not be a ground to discard testimony of a witness unless there is material indicating unfair practice or the Investigating Officer was noticed getting the witness to falsely support the prosecution case. In the matter at hand, no suggestion was made to PW-15 Dalu Ram Sahu, SHO that he has falsely fabricated the evidence. Therefore, both the witnesses were rightly held to be of sterling worth by the Trial Court. 18. In addition to above eye-witnesses of the occurrence, PW-15 Dalu Ram Sahu, PW-11 Surendra Kumar, Head Constable as also PW-9 Mohammed Sayeed have also proved that immediately after the occurrence they apprehended the accused-Bhairu Lal, speeding away on a Maruti car at Police out-post situated at Ajmer road, who was wearing blood-stained clothes and steering wheel cover as also key-ring of the car were smeared with blood and accused could not give plausible explanation for the same. Immediately prior to that, some Maruti man stabbed Pappu Singh @ Bhanwar Singh in the temple, therefore, they apprehended him and put under arrest, seized and the Maruti car as also blood-stained clothes and other blood-stained articles were also seized and sealed. All these witnesses have been cross-examined at the length but nothing substantial could be elicited affecting their testimony adversely. 19. PW-9 Mohammed Sayeed though declared hostile, has supported the prosecution story to a larger extent that he was also, along with Surendra Kumar, deputed for nakabandi at Ajmer road chowki andwithin 15-20 minutes, a speedy white Maruti car, No. GJ 5A 9219 was noticed, which was signalled to stop by them but the car turned back immediately, which was chasee by Surendra. Kumar. The accused was later on seen by this witness in the Police Station along with car. Even if PW-9 Mohammed Sayeed may not be corroborating the prosecution version in all details, that by itself would not damage the prosecution version to the slightest because he has stated that accused-appellant along with Maruti car was apprehended by the Police on 11.8.1996, in the , evening and the clothes worn by Bhairu Lal were also blood stained. 20. All these witnesses have proved seizure memo Exs.P/16 to P/18. PW-13 Virendra Soni is the person who sold above Maruti car to accused-appellant a few days prior to the incident and proved the same in the Court. He also has not been cross-examined much. Therefore, there were abundant evidence available on the record that it was accused-appellant who was apprehended, speeding away on a Maruti car, immediately after the occurrence and clothes worn by him were extensively blood smeared. So also the cover of steering wheel and key-ring of the Maruti car. Not an iota of suggestion was given to any of the prosecution witness in the cross-examination nor in his statement given u/s. 313, Cr.P.C. about above incriminating evidence appearing against the accused. Had accused-appellant been innocent, at least he should have explained how he has wearing blood-stained clothes immediately after the occurrence and how cover of the steering wheel as also key-ring of the car were having blood-stains. The submission of Mr. Garg that chemical examination was not sought, will not damage the testimonial value of the prosecution witnesses to the slightest. Had accused-appellant been innocent, at least he should have explained how he has wearing blood-stained clothes immediately after the occurrence and how cover of the steering wheel as also key-ring of the car were having blood-stains. The submission of Mr. Garg that chemical examination was not sought, will not damage the testimonial value of the prosecution witnesses to the slightest. Had there been report of chemical examination, it may have corroborated the prosecution story, sans it, the prosecution will have to rely upon other evidence, ocular and documentary, available on the record. 21. Mr. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, then submitted that there was no motive of the crime. Lack of motive can not damage the prosecution case because often serious crimes are committed without any motive. Motive is in the mind of perpetrator of the crime. When there is direct evidence of commission of crime, plea of motive pales into insignificance. Motive is relevant only in cases hinging upon circumstantial evidence. Therefore, this plea of the learned counsel also fails. 22. In addition to above evidence, PW-16 Dr. Anil Lahoti has proved post-mortem report Ex.P/24. He did autopsy on the dead body and found on ante-mortem stab wound, 1.5" x 0.5" x 3" at mid of costal margin, extending backward, upward with coming out of blood and clots. Upon opening the body, due to this injury there was tearing of pericardium as also right atrium, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 23. No other plea was advanced before us by the learned counsel.Keeping in view above ocular and documentary evidence, Trial Court has rightly appreciated the prosecution evidence and convicted the accused-appellant. We do not find any infirmity and/or deficiency in it, therefore, we uphold the impugned judgment and conviction. The appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******