Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT Anni Lal stands convicted under Section 302 of the IPC with sentence of imprisonment for life and appellant Rammu alias Ramesh stands convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC, with sentence of imprisonment for life, vide impugned judgment dated 4-8-1984 passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No. 86/1993. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case as portrayed during trial is that in the intervening night of 6-7th June, 1993 deceased Gautam was assaulted while he was sleeping on a cot in his field near the tube well. His brother Nanhe Veer (P. W. 10) was also sleeping on the same cot. At about 3 AM. the appellants came to the place of occurrence and assaulted the deceased Gautam. Appellant No. 2 Anni Lal was armed with an axe, while appellant No. 1 Rammu alias ramesh was armed with a Barchhi. On hearing the cries of the deceased, nanhe Veer woke up and saw the appellants assaulting the deceased. He rushed to the nearby field and informed Babbu alias Dhanpat, Suresh and brijesh about the incident. Thereafter he went to his village where he informed kotwar, Nand Ram (P. W. 3) that someone had murdered his brother. ( 3. ) THE case of the prosecution further is that Nanhe Veer (P. W. 10) went to the house of Rajendra Singh (P. W. 5) and informed him regarding the incident. Rajendra Singh (P. W. 5) went to Police Station, Gotegaon, where he lodged First Information Report vide Ex. P-l at 6. 10 A. M. The distance of police station from the place of occurrence is 11 Kms. R. D. Dwivedi (P. W. 11), sub Inspector, Gotegaon, reached the spot and commenced investigation. He prepared spot map (Ex. P-12 ). He also prepared inquest Panchnama (Ex. P-13 ). The body of the deceased was sent to Government Hospital, Gotegaon with a requisition for post- mortem examination. Post-mortem was conducted by Dr. R. S. Chakrawarti (P. W. 13) on 7-6-1993 who found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:- (1) Incised wound 5 cms x 1. 5 cms x right arm - end of radius bone exposed. (2) Abrasion, 3 cms x 1 cm, posterior aspect left middle finger first and second phalanx, caused by hard and blunt object; (3) Incised wound 4 cms x 1. 5 cms x right arm - end of radius bone exposed. (2) Abrasion, 3 cms x 1 cm, posterior aspect left middle finger first and second phalanx, caused by hard and blunt object; (3) Incised wound 4 cms x 1. 5 cms x muscle deep, left hand; (4) Incised wound 11 cms x 6 cms x 10 cms. , horizontal, traciaoesophages and all big vessels cut, apex of right lung exposed and post costo chondral of first and second ribs were cut; (5) Incised wound 5 cms x 1. 5 cms x skin deep oblique on the right steno contrail junctions of first and second rib area; (6) Incised wound 3 cms x 1. 5 cms x 3 cms just above sternal notch. Horizontal; (7) Incised wound 13 cms x 5 cms x bone deep (fourth cervical vertebra cut) many of the big vessels were cut. Trachea, oesophagus and big vessels cut; (8) Incised wound 15 cms x 7 cms x bone deep on frontal aspect on neck fifth cervical vertebra cut. Trachea and oesophagus cut; (9) Incised wound 4 cms x 2 cms x 2. 5 cms on the upper part of the neck, horizontal; and (10) Multiple abrasions of different sizes on face. Dr. Chakrawarti opined that injury Nos. 2 and 10 were caused by hard and blunt object and other injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. Ex. P-19 is the report of Dr. Chakrawarti. ( 4. ) NANHE Veer was also examined by Dr. Smt. Kiran Bala Mishra who found multiple abrasions on his chest and multiple abrasions on the left fore arm vide her report (Ex. P-15 ). ( 5. ) SUB-INSPECTOR Dwivedi seized blood stained mattress, one blood stained pillow, blood stained soil and plain soil from the spot as per Ex. P-2. A blood stained axe was seized from the spot vide Ex. P-3. One banyan with blood stains was seized from Nanhe Veer vide Ex. P-4. One Gamchha with blood stains was seized from appellant Rammu vide Ex. P-5 and one blood stained gamchha was seized from Anni Lai as per Ex. P-6. Appellants were arrested on 15-6-1993 as per arrest memo (Ex. P-8 ). ( 6. ) ABOVE referred seized mattress, pillow, axe, gamchhas, and baniyan stained with blood and plain soil were sent to Forensic Science laboratory, Sagar for chemical analysis. P-5 and one blood stained gamchha was seized from Anni Lai as per Ex. P-6. Appellants were arrested on 15-6-1993 as per arrest memo (Ex. P-8 ). ( 6. ) ABOVE referred seized mattress, pillow, axe, gamchhas, and baniyan stained with blood and plain soil were sent to Forensic Science laboratory, Sagar for chemical analysis. Assistant Chemical Examiner found presence of blood on all the articles except on plain soil. ( 7. ) AFTER investigation, a challan was filed against the appellants for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants. Defence of the appellants was one of denial and false implication. ( 8. ) ON the basis of the above prosecution case, Trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and appellants were responsible for the murder of the deceased and, therefore, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. ( 9. ) AGGRIEVED by the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, appellants have filed this appeal. ( 10. ) WE have heard Shri Siddrath Dutt, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri S. K Rai, learned Counsel for the State. ( 11. ) SHRI Datt, learned Counsel for the appellants had led us through the record and contended that learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in holding the appellants guilty for the charges levelled against them. He submitted that the conviction and sentence of the appellants are illegal and incorrect. On the other hand Shri S. K. Rai, learned State Counsel has supported the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants as indicated above. ( 12. ) THE first question that arises for determination is whether gautam died a homicidal death. Sub Inspector R. D. Dwivedi (P. W. 11) has stated that he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. Dr. R. S. Chakrawarti (P. W. 13) has conducted post-mortem examination on the body of deceased. He found that cause of death of deceased Gautam was brutal injuries caused on his neck cutting vital organs and big vessels resulting in excessive haemorrhage and shock leading to instantaneous death. From this evidence it is clear that Gautam died homicidal death. ( 13. R. S. Chakrawarti (P. W. 13) has conducted post-mortem examination on the body of deceased. He found that cause of death of deceased Gautam was brutal injuries caused on his neck cutting vital organs and big vessels resulting in excessive haemorrhage and shock leading to instantaneous death. From this evidence it is clear that Gautam died homicidal death. ( 13. ) SHRI Datt, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has not very seriously disputed that the death of Gautam was homicidal. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that deceased Gautam died a homicidal death. ( 14. ) THIS brings us to determine the crucial question as to who caused the death of Gautam. ( 15. ) PROSECUTION has examined Nanhe Veer (P. W. 10) as solitary eye-witness of the incident. He has stated that at the relevant time he was sleeping in the field along with his brother Gautam on the same cot. At about 2 in the night his brother Gautam shouted maar DALA. On hearing the cries of the deceased, he woke up and witnessed appellant Ramesh assaulting his brother with Barchhi and appellant Anni Lal dealing axe blows on the neck of the deceased. When he tried to run away, appellant Anni Lal threw axe towards him. At a distance of few paces, he fell down but immediately got up and went to nearby field and informed Brijesh and Babbu about the incident. Thereafter, he came to the village along with Ammu son of Babbu. In the village he informed Rajendra Singh (P. W. 5), Giran Singh (P. W. 7), Nand ram, Kotwar (P. W. 3) and Govind (P. W. 4 ). Rajendra Singh (P. W. 5) went to police Station, Gotegaon to lodge the report. ( 16. ) RAJENDRA Singh (P. W. 5) has stated that on the relevant date at about 3 AM Nanhe Veer came to his house and informed him that appellants have killed his brother Gautam. Nanhe Veer also informed him that appellant anni Lal was armed with an axe and appellant Rammu was armed with a barchhi. He asked Nanhe Veer to inform other villagers about the incident. Some persons of the village gathered and went to the place of occurrence. Thereafter he went to Police Station, Gotegaon and lodged First Information report (Ex. P-7 ). ( 17. He asked Nanhe Veer to inform other villagers about the incident. Some persons of the village gathered and went to the place of occurrence. Thereafter he went to Police Station, Gotegaon and lodged First Information report (Ex. P-7 ). ( 17. ) NAND Ram (P. W. 3) has stated that at about 3 AM Nanhe Veer came to his house from his field and informed him that somebody has killed his brother Gautam. He requested the witness to accompany him up to his house. He accordingly accompanied him up to his house where Nanhe Veer informed his brother Hosiyar Singh about the incident. The villagers reached at the scene of occurrence and found Gautam lying dead in a pool of blood with multiple injuries. Thereafter, he along with Rajendra Singh went to Police station, Gotegaon, where Rajendra Singh lodged the report in his presence. ( 18. ) GOVIND (P. W. 4) has also stated that at about 3 AM Nanhe Veer came to his house and informed him that the appellants have killed his brother. He also informed him that appellant Anni Lal dealt axe blows and Rammu used Ballam. Nanhe Veer also informed him that when he tried to run away, appellant Anni Lal threw his axe towards him. He along with some villagers reached at the place of occurrence. ( 19. ) HOSIYAR Singh (P. W. 6) has deposed during the trial that on the relevant night, his brothers Nanhe Veer and Gautam were sleeping in their field. At about 3 AM Nanhe Veer came to the house and informed him that appellants have killed Gautam. He also informed that Anni Lal was armed with an axe and Rammu was armed with a Ballam. In the night itself some villagers went to the spot where dead body of Gautam was lying on a cot. ( 20. ) GIRAN Singh (P. W. 7) has stated that Nanhe Veer told him that some bandits (bhadiyas) have killed his brother. Mahendra Singh (P. W. 8) has stated that Nanhe Veer had informed him that his brother Gautam had been done to death. He also informed him that he could identify the killers but he did not ask him the names of the killers and advised him to inform the matter to the Kotwar. Mahendra Singh (P. W. 8) has stated that Nanhe Veer had informed him that his brother Gautam had been done to death. He also informed him that he could identify the killers but he did not ask him the names of the killers and advised him to inform the matter to the Kotwar. Sardar Singh (P. W. 9) has also stated that Nanhe Veer informed him about the murder of his brother. He also informed him the names of the assailants, which he (the witness) could not remember because he was not knowing them as he was away from Village Noni and lived at Bombay for about 23 years, and came to the Village Noni only 2 years back. ( 21. ) AFTER carefully perusing the evidence of Nanhe Veer (P. W. 10)we do not find any reason to disbelieve him. It is true that Nanhe Veer is the brother of the deceased and some of the witnesses to whom Nanhe Veer stated about the incident are related to him but Nanhe Veer has no personal enmity with the accused persons. According to him Anni Lal assaulted Gautam prior to the incident. Thereafter, Anni Lal tried to develop intimacy/closeness with them by occasionally sending the vegetables. It is difficult to accept the plea that if a witness is a relative of the deceased and it is also shown that he had some hostility towards the accused, his evidence can never be accepted. The proposition that when the eye-witness of the occurrence is an interested person there should be corroboration of his evidence by independent witness can not be of universal application. It is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of rule. Once the Court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witness has a ring of truth, such an evidence can be relied upon even without corroboration. As a rule of prudence, evidence of such witness should be scrutinised with extra care. ( 22. ) THE evidence of Nanhe Veer can not be thrown over board simply on the ground that his evidence is of a close relative. Such witness would be the least disposed to falsely implicate the appellants or substitute them in place of the real culprits. ( 22. ) THE evidence of Nanhe Veer can not be thrown over board simply on the ground that his evidence is of a close relative. Such witness would be the least disposed to falsely implicate the appellants or substitute them in place of the real culprits. When the occurrence took place at the mid night in the field and the only witness who could have seen the occurrence was the family member of the deceased, it would not be proper to insist that the evidence of the family member should be disbelieved merely because of his interestedness. The presence of Nanhe Veer during the occurrence can not be doubted. There is ample evidence that he was sleeping along with the deceased on the same cot. The injuries which he received on account of fall while he was running away also establishes his presence at the scene of occurrence. ( 23. ) SHRI Datt, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that though Nanhe Veer was in touch with the police on 7-6-1993, yet his statement was not recorded on that day. He admitted that he was taken to the police station on 7-6-1993 and was kept there for whole night. He has further stated that police suspected him of having committed murder of his brother and used third degree method on him. It is only thereafter that his case diary statement was recorded on 8-6-1993. ( 24. ) MERELY because there was some irregularity in the investigation, the veracity of the witness can not be doubted and the fact that investigating officer committed irregularity or illegality during the course of investigation and there was misplaced suspicion or third degree method was applied for some gain would not and does not cast doubt on the prosecution case. Trustworthy and reliable evidence of Nanhe Veer can not be discarded on that count to record acquittal. It is a matter of common knowledge that the worst violation of human right takes place during the course of investigation when the police sometimes, with a view to secure evidence resort to third degree method. R. D. Dwivedi (P. W. 11) has stated that as he was busy in preparing spot map and inquest Panchnama, he could not record the statement of Nanhe veer on 7-6-1993. R. D. Dwivedi (P. W. 11) has stated that as he was busy in preparing spot map and inquest Panchnama, he could not record the statement of Nanhe veer on 7-6-1993. The evidence of Nanhe Veer can not be rejected merely on the ground that his case diary statement was recorded after few hours. It will have no adverse effect on the probative value of the deposition of Nanhe Veer, more so, when there is no apprehension of embellishment as the FIR was lodged promptly. ( 25. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that according to prosecution, appellant No. 1 Rammu used Barchhi to assault the deceased but no such injury was found on the person of the deceased. Therefore, medical evidence contradicts testimony of this eye witness. Dr. Chakrawarti in Para 6 of his statement has stated that regarding injury found on the forearm of the deceased he can not say with certainty as to whether it was caused by axe or ballam but regarding other injuries he is certain that they were caused by an axe. Therefore, use of ballam during the incident is not ruled out. ( 26. ) SHRI Datt further submitted that evidence of Nanhe Veer is grossly unreliable and unworthy of any credence for another reason that when immediately after the assault he ran to the adjoining field, he informed Babbu, suresh and Brijesh that some bandits have killed his brother. He did not disclose the names of assailants. The witness has explained the reason for this that he was badly frightened. His brother was killed in his presence and as such he was in a state of shock. He must have apprehended the arrival of the appellants there also. After reaching the village he specifically narrated the names of the assailants to Rajendra Singh, Govind, Ujayar Singh and Sardar singh. Before that there was no occasion for any deliberation to implicate the appellants. The names of the appellants find place in the first information report lodged by Rajendra Singh promptly on the information given by Nanhe veer. Therefore, it can not be said that the assailants could not be identified by Nanhe Veer. ( 27. ) THE presence of Nanhe Veer at the place of occurrence can not be doubted also because he sustained abrasions when he fell down while running away. Therefore, it can not be said that the assailants could not be identified by Nanhe Veer. ( 27. ) THE presence of Nanhe Veer at the place of occurrence can not be doubted also because he sustained abrasions when he fell down while running away. On overall appreciation of the evidence of Nanhe Veer and his conduct we are convinced that he is reliable witness. His evidence does inspire confidence. ( 28. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants next contended that First information Report is anti-dated. Counter-foil of the First Information Report reached to the concerned Magistrate on 10-6-1993 as stated by the defence witness Bihari Lal Hadeou, Clerk of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, narsinghpur. Therefore, only inference that can be drawn is that the FIR was ascribed on 9-6-93 and was sent to the Magistrate next day. ( 29. ) IT is true that Rajendra Singh has also stated that the FIR was not recorded at police station but was recorded in Village Noni, but it appears that due to some confusion Rajendra Singh has stated so. Certain documents were prepared at Village Noni also and signature of witnesses were obtained thereon. This may be a cause of some confusion. Nand Ram (P. W. 3) who claims to have accompanied Rajendra Singh has clearly stated that the Town inspector recorded the First Information Report at the police station itself. ( 30. ) THE contention that First Information Report was anti- dated because names of real culprits were not known till 9-6-93 can not be accepted for the reason that the names of the appellants find place in Ex. P-13 (inquest)which was Undisputedly prepared on 7-6-93 itself. Dr. Chakrawarti has specifically stated that he conducted post-mortem examination on 7-6-93 at 2 PM. The requisition of post-mortem also contains the names of the appellants. These documents can not be said to be anti-dated and for this reason First information Report (Ex. P-7) also can not be said to be anti-dated. ( 31. ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellants also submitted that the appellants were arrested on 15-6-1993. If in fact there was an oral allegation against the appellants by Nanhe Veer that they had committed murder of Gautam, it is in- conceivable that the appellants would not have been arrested immediately. Delay in arresting the appellants proves the defence contention that the identity of the appellants was not established. If in fact there was an oral allegation against the appellants by Nanhe Veer that they had committed murder of Gautam, it is in- conceivable that the appellants would not have been arrested immediately. Delay in arresting the appellants proves the defence contention that the identity of the appellants was not established. ( 32. ) THIS contention is also not acceptable. Simply because the investigating officer wanted to investigate the matter further before arresting the appellants or he committed irregularities in investigation, it can not be said that the identity of the appellants was not known till the date of their arrest. The names of appellants find place not only in the First Information Report promptly lodged but also in other documents like inquest and requisition for post-mortem examination. ( 33. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants further submitted that articles recovered from the possession of the appellants were not stained with human blood, therefore there recovery is not of much value. ( 34. ) FROM the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, it is clear that blood was found on the Gamchhas seized from the appellants. The blood was also found on the Banyan recovered from Nanhe Veer. The appellants have not given any explanation regarding presence of blood on the Gamchhas recovered from them. ( 35. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants lastly contended that in the absence of any injury of Barchhi, presence of appellant Rammu becomes doubtful. There was no previous meeting of Rammu and co-accused Anni Lal. Therefore, there was no common intention of co-accused Anni Lal and appellant Rammu. ( 36. ) FROM the evidence of Nanhe Veer it is clearly established that rammu was not only present with Anni Lal but he also was armed with Barchhi and participated in the commission of the offence. Therefore, it can not be said that he did not share the common intention with his co-accused Anni Lal. ( 37. ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment has discussed the evidence in detail. The findings of the Trial Court are based on cogent reasons. The deceased suffered not only incised wound but also abrasions on face and left middle finger. This shows that not only the axe was used but some other weapon was also used and more than one person participate in the crime. ( 38. The findings of the Trial Court are based on cogent reasons. The deceased suffered not only incised wound but also abrasions on face and left middle finger. This shows that not only the axe was used but some other weapon was also used and more than one person participate in the crime. ( 38. ) LOOKING to the totality of the evidence as discussed above we are of the opinion that there is overwhelming evidence with regard to the fact that appellants participated in the crime. Their involvement in the crime is amply proved by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. ( 39. ) LOOKING to the nature of injuries sustained by deceased, it is established that appellants intentionally caused the death of Gautam and thus committed the offence of murder. The case does not come under any of the exceptions of Section 300. The offence under Section 302, IPC has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 40. ) WE do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The conviction of appellant Anni Lal under Section 302 and that of appellant rammu alias Ramesh under Section 302/34, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment is maintained. Criminal Appeal dismissed.