Judgment Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Whether relationship is such a factor which affects credibility of a witness ? This question requires consideration in view of the significant facts that the prosecution restsed the instant case only that the prosecution rested the instant case only on the testimony of close relatives of the deceased Jadvir Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur convicted and sentenced the four appellants on the charge of murder of Jadvir Singh after placing reliance on the testimony of his wife, mother, son and salhej (sister in law) as under :- Lotan : u/Sec. 302 To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of IPC Rs. 1.000/-, in default to further suffer One Month Simple Imprisonment. Satish Kumar, Kishan Singh & Shivdei:(Each) u/Sec. 302/149 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer One Month Simple Imprisonment. u/Sec. 147 IPC To suffer Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer Fifteen Days Simple Imprisonment. u/Sec. 148 IPC To suffer Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer Fifteen Days Simple Imprisonment. 2. Asper prosecution story, Rohtash, the wife of deceased Jadveer Singh on the fateful day of November 5, 1995 had gone to the house of her Bhabhi (sister-in-law) Seema situated at Kacchi Basti, Ranjet Nagar in the afternoon. Rohtash was accompanied by her mother-in-law Sunabra and son Varun. Around 5.30 PM they left the house of Seema and proceeded back. Seema came to see them off upto the road. Before they decided to hire ricksha, they saw Jadvir Singh coming on Motor cycle towards Kacchi Basti. The appellants and other persons who were sitting in Khokha (small wooden place) of Kalyan at the turn of Kacchi Basti, surrounded Jadvir Singh made assault on him with pharsis, lathis and knife and took him to the house of Kishan, After leaving injured Jadvir Singh in the house of Kishan, the appellants fled away. Jadvir Singh was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead; Seema submitted written report to the police at General Hospital Bharatpur and investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed against the appellant. The investigation was however kept pending against the four accused under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 3. Jadvir Singh was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead; Seema submitted written report to the police at General Hospital Bharatpur and investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed against the appellant. The investigation was however kept pending against the four accused under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 3. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur. The charges under Section 147, 148, 302 alternatively 302 read with 149 IPC were framed against the appellants. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 15 witnesses and got exhibited 27 documents. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed innocence and stated that on account of enmity they were falsely implicated. However no defence evidence was adduced. Learned Trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 4. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that during the trial the prosecution has given complete goby to the version set out in the FIR. The circumstantial evidence, instead of rendering help to the ocular testimony goes counter to it. Most of the prosecution witnesses namely Jagdish (PW.4), Satya Prakash (PW.5), Ram Charan (PW. 6), Mohan Das (PW.7), Gajraj (PW. 11) and Lala Ram (PW. 14) did not the prosecution line and were declared hostile by the prosecution. Seema (PW. 1), who claims herself to be the eye witness of the impugned assault, has freely indulged in making false assertions and she is not a reliable witness. The statement of Rohtash (PW.2) suffers from various improbabilities and she is a made up witness. Sunahara Devi (PW. 3) could not have witnesses the impugned assault and her testimony suffers from glaring incongruences. The presence of another so called eye witness Varun (PW.8) on the spot is highly doubtful. All the eye witnesses are highly doubtful. All the eye witnesses are closely related to the deceased and no one from the thickly populated locality has been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has miserably failed to spell out the exact proximate cause which might have triggled of the impugned assault. During the trial the actual scene of assault has been shifted and medical testimony goes counter to the ocular testimony. The prosecution has miserably failed to spell out the exact proximate cause which might have triggled of the impugned assault. During the trial the actual scene of assault has been shifted and medical testimony goes counter to the ocular testimony. The statements of alleged eye witnesses were recorded belatedly and no explanation for delay has come forward. The prosecution has failed to spell out any motive for the impugned assault. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State supported the impugned judgment and contended that the appellants were rightly convicted by the learned Trial Judge. Although Seema, Rohtash, Sunahara Devi and Varun are closely related to the deceased, but in the facts and circumstances of the case their presence at the spot was most natural, Rohtash, the wife of the deceased, along with her mother-in-law Sunabra Devi and son Varun came at Kacchi Basti, Ranjit Nagar to meet her Bhabhi (sister-in-law) Seema. Around 5.30 PM the deceased Jadvir Singh came to Kacchi Basti Ranjit Nagar on motor cycle to bring his wife, son and mother and when he took turn towards Kacchi Basti he was surrounded by the appellants and other assailants and was taken to the house of Kishan where assault was made on his person with pharsis, lathis and knife by the appellants. Jadvir Singh was found in injured condition in the house of Kishan and succumbed to injuries. The incident had been witnessed by Seema, Rohtash, Sunahara and Varun who were present at the place of incident. 6. We shall now delve deep into the facts and circumstances of the case to find out the tenability of the submissions advanced before us. Turning to the testimony of Seema (PW. 1) it may be noticed that Rohtash, wife of the deceased, is her Nanad (sister- in-law) and on the date of incident Rohtash along with her mother-in-law Sunahra and son Varun visited the house of Seema in the afternoon. In her deposition Seema stated that the appellant Shivdei who used to reside near her house at Ranjit Nagar, got her plot sold to a person of village Gangarsoli through deceased Jadvir Singh. The appellant Lotan forcibly wanted to raise construction over the said plot but Jadvir Singh did not allow his therefore the relations of Lotan and Jadvir Singh became strained. The appellant Lotan forcibly wanted to raise construction over the said plot but Jadvir Singh did not allow his therefore the relations of Lotan and Jadvir Singh became strained. She further deposed that around 5.30 PM on November 5, 1995 she went upto the road to see off Rohtash, Sunahra and Varun and before they decided to hire Rickshaw, she saw Jadvir Singh coming towards Kacchi Basti on motor cycle. At the turn of Kacchi Basti Charan Singh, Lotan, Satish, Kishan Singh and Shivdei were sitting in the Khokha (small shop) of Kalayan. They surrounded Jadvir Singh, who threw his motor cycle and entered in a plot of Dalchand. He was followed by Charan Singh, Lotan, Satish, Kishan Singh and Shivdei who made assault on him with lathis and Pharsis, Lotan was armed with a knife. When she, Rohtash, Sunahara Devi and Varun raised shouts, the assailants dragged Jadvir Singh to the house of Kishan Singh. She followed them and saw lotan inflicting knife-blow on the left side of the chest of Jadvir Singh in the house of Kishan Singh. After causing injuries all the accused fled away. The police was informed telephonically and at the Hospital she submitted witness report of the incident. 7. Rohtash (PW.2), the wife of the deceased deposed that she along with her mother-in-law Sunahra Devi and son Varun came to meet her Bhabhi Seema Devi. She waited her husband Jadvir Singh upto 5/5.30 PM, but when he did not come they proceeded on foot and Seema also came with them upto the road for seeing them off where she saw her husband coming on motor cycle, Lotan, Kishan, Satish, Charan Singh and Shivdei were hidden behind the Khokha of Kalyan. As soon as Jadvir Singh turned towards Kacchi Basti they made assault on him. Jadvir Singh left his motor cycle and rushed towards Kacchi Basti and entered in the bada of Dalu Ram. The assailants then followed her husband the inflicted blows with pharsis and knife. The assailants dragged her husband inside the house of Kishan where Lotan inflicted knife-blow on the person of her husband. 8. Sunahara Devi(PW.3), and Varun (PW. 8) corroborated the testimony of Seema Devi and Rohtash. 9. Dr. The assailants then followed her husband the inflicted blows with pharsis and knife. The assailants dragged her husband inside the house of Kishan where Lotan inflicted knife-blow on the person of her husband. 8. Sunahara Devi(PW.3), and Varun (PW. 8) corroborated the testimony of Seema Devi and Rohtash. 9. Dr. B.L. Meena (PW.9) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jadvir Singh and as per post mortem report (Ex.P.10) as many as 20 ante mortem injuries over the various parts of the body were found on the person of Jadvir Singh. The injury No. 20 was vertical stab would 3 cm x 1.5 cm x Chest cavity on left side of mid chest at left clavical line, which was found by the autopsy surgeon, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injuries sustained by the deceased as per post mortem report are as under :- .(1) Vertical Lacerated wound 5 x 1cm x bone deep on Rt. fronto parietal area-rest clotted blood. .(2) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on Mid upon forehead. .(3) Abrasion 4 x 1cm x sub chin area. .(4) Abraided bruise 5 x 1.5 cm on Lt. side chin at zygomatic area. .(5) Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1 cm x S.D. on Lt. Sub mandibular mid area. .(6) Punctured lacerated wound 1.5 x I cm on Rt. arm down 1/3 outer. .(7) Red bruise 3 x 2cm on latral about Rt. elbow. .(8) Red bruise 3 x 1.5 cm. on mid 1/3 Rt. fore arm back. .(9) Vertical gnisal punctured would 1.5” x 1/2” x bone cut deep on back Lt. elbow joint on cut fracture, Lt. ulna-cut bone present clean cut regular margin. .(10) Abraison 2 x 1cm on 1.5” below injury No. 9. .(11) Two abraison 6 x 1.5 cm & 2 x 1 cm on medial inner 1/3 Lt. forearm 3cm jut below. .(12) Three abraisons 1 x 1/2 cm & 1/2 x 1/2 cm on close Lt. index fingre & hand at palm. .(13) Six abrasions 4 x 2cm to 1/2 x 1/2cm dist. of 3” to 1/2” inbeted on lower 1/3rd back at lumber vertical area. .(14) Two abraison 5 x 2cm & x 1/2cm on Rt. tibial at Mid 1/3rd 1.5 on thigh. .(15) Abrasion 3 x 1.5 cmon front Rt. ankle joint. .(16) Abrasion 1 x 1cm on It. front toe at thumb. of 3” to 1/2” inbeted on lower 1/3rd back at lumber vertical area. .(14) Two abraison 5 x 2cm & x 1/2cm on Rt. tibial at Mid 1/3rd 1.5 on thigh. .(15) Abrasion 3 x 1.5 cmon front Rt. ankle joint. .(16) Abrasion 1 x 1cm on It. front toe at thumb. .(17) FiveAbrasion 5 x 2cm to 1 x 1cm placed, Two on Lt. knee laterally- 1cm gsu, 3rd on Lt. tibial front, 4th on 1/3rd middle & 5th on lower 1/3rd Lt. tibial. .(18) Three abrauded bruise 4 x 2cm to 3 x 1/2 cm just 3cm in between on left upper chest. .(19) Two abrasion 1 x 1 cm just 3 cm in between on Rt. side mid chest. .(20) Vertical stab wound 3cm x 1.5 cm x chest cavity deep on Lt. side mid chest at mid, let, clavical line medial to nipple lt.0 clean cut regular and well defind region-oozing dark blood. 10. Coming to the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in the FIR neither the names of eye witnesses were mentioned nor it was stated as to which accused inflicted the injury on the person of the deceased. Even the motive behind the murder was not disclosed. In this situation the improvement made in the statements by the witness at the trial could not be relied upon. We regret our inability to accede to the submission. The Apex Court in Bijoy Singh vs. State of Bihar (1), indicated that it is not the requirement of law that the minute details be recorded in the FIR lodged immediately after the occurrence. The fact of the State of mental agony of the person making the FIR who generally is the relative or associate of the deceased apparently under the shock of the occurrence reported, has always be kept in mind. In Bhagwan Singh vs. State of M.P. (2), it was held that statement made by a witness at the trial cannot be discarded on the ground that her name was not mentioned in the FIR. 11. Sofar as second contention of learned counsel that withholding original FIR is fatal to the prosecution as Prahlad Singh (1.0.) admitted that he received information over telephone at 6.55 PM that certain persons killed Jadvir Singh in Ranjeet Nagar Kacchi Basti and said information was entered in Rojnamcha, we find it devoid of merit. 11. Sofar as second contention of learned counsel that withholding original FIR is fatal to the prosecution as Prahlad Singh (1.0.) admitted that he received information over telephone at 6.55 PM that certain persons killed Jadvir Singh in Ranjeet Nagar Kacchi Basti and said information was entered in Rojnamcha, we find it devoid of merit. The Apex Court in Mundrika Mahto vs. State of Bihar (3); ruled that telephonic conversation, being a cryptic information received and recorded in the daily diary regarding commission of offence, cannot be treated as an FIR. 12. Learned counsel further contended that statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Seema, Rohtash and Sunabra were not recorded forthwith and their delayed examination creates doubt in the prosecution story. We do not find any force in this contention. The Apex Court in Bodh Raj vs. State of J & K (4), propounded that there could be no rule of universal application that if there is any delay in examination of a particular witness the prosecution version becomes suspect. In the instant case the FIR was lodged promptly. Statement of informant Seema was recorded on the next day i.e. November 6, 1995, whereas Rohtash and Sunabra gave their deposition after six days. While considering the submissions in regard to delay in recording the statements of the witness by the police the court has to keep in mind the mental state of the witnesses who bread earner was murdered. 13. Asregard the site plan (Ex.P.2) the contention of learned counsel was that initial beating was given to the deceased at mark ‘X-2’ and then the deceased was dragged to the house of Kishan Singh and injuries were inflicted at place shown as ‘X-3’. As per the testimony of 1.0. Prahlad Singh (PW. 15) he found trial of blood from place ‘x-2’ to ‘x-3’ but the said blood and the blood found on recovered arms could not be matched as FSL report was not placed on record. In our opinion failure to place the FSL report on record, by itself , would not demolish the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. If blood found near the place of incident was not matched with the blood found on the recovered arms, it is not sufficient to conclude that the incident did not happen at the spot at all in view of testimony of eye witnesses. 14. If blood found near the place of incident was not matched with the blood found on the recovered arms, it is not sufficient to conclude that the incident did not happen at the spot at all in view of testimony of eye witnesses. 14. That takes us to the submissions regarding interestness of the witnesses. The question that need our answer is whether relationship is such a factor which affects credibility of a witness ? Erasing the impression that relatives were not independent witnesses their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab (5), indicated thus : (para 26). “A witness is normally to be considered independent witness he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has the cause, such an enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinary a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate and innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for emmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and mere fact of relationship tar from being a foundation is after a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any weeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts our observation are only made to combat what is so often put forward is cases before us as a rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.” 15. In Masalti vs. State of U.P. (6), reiterating the same view, their lordships observed as under: (Para 14) “But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witness. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the stole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how such evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.” 16. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how such evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.” 16. In Lehna vs. State of Haryana (7), it was held that relation by itself cannot be a ground to doubt testimony of such witness. 17. In Gangadhar Behere vs. State of Orissa (8), it was propounded that merely because of witnesses being related to the deceased, that by itself , would not affect credibility of testimony of such witnesses. 18. In Bhagwan Singh vs. State of M.P. (9), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that where the testimony of prosecution witnesses was cogent, reliable and confident-inspiring, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the said witnesses happened to be relatives of the deceased. 19. Ratio indicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforequotted pronouncements, may be summarised thus .(i) Merely being relative of the deceased is no ground to reject the testimony of witnesses who are otherwise found to be trustworthy and reliable. .(ii) Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence, but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan, cannot be accepted as correct. (iii) If for the plea of false implication proper foundation is laid, Court, by adopting a cautious approach, will analyse the evidence to find its credibility. .(iv) A related witness normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be trained. .(v) Thereis no general rule in regard to appreciation of testimony of related witnesses. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts. 20. Bearing in mind these principles we now proceed to scan the testimony of Seema, Rohtash, Sunahra Devi and Varun who are closely related to the deceased Jadvir Singh. 21. Aclose look at the FIR (Ex.P. 1) reveals that only Lotan, Kishan, Charan Singh and Shivdei were named and reference of 10-15 persons belonging to village Jagheena was made. Admittedly appellant Satish Kumar was not named in the FIR and he was implicated as assailant during trial. The FIR was submitted promptly at the Hospital to the SHO by Seema (PW. 1). Admittedly appellant Satish Kumar was not named in the FIR and he was implicated as assailant during trial. The FIR was submitted promptly at the Hospital to the SHO by Seema (PW. 1). On a careful scrutiny of the testimony of Seema (PW.1), Rohtash (PW.2), Sunabra (PW.3) and Varuri (PW.8) we however have come across with some exaggeration, embellishments and inconsistencies but having scanned their statements from the point of view of trustworthiness we find them reliable qua the appellants Lotan, Kishan and Shivdei. In Kaki Ramesh vs. State of A.P. (10), Hon’ble Apex Court indicated that exaggeration, embellishments and inconsistencies on the fringe do not make witness unreliable. We find the presence of all the four eye witnesses at the time of incident quite natural. Although much criticism has been made in regard to conduct of these witnesses but we see no abnormality in their conduct. Looking to the fact that Jadvir Singh was surrounded, dragged and mercilessly beaten, conduct of Seema, Rohtash, Sunahra and Varun, three women and a child of village background, cannot be termed as abnormal in the facts and circumstances of this case if they did not make attempt to save the deceased. As per medical testimony the deceased had sustained as many as 20 injuries out of which two were caused by sharp edged weapon. Recovery of knife at the instance of Lotan is established. It is also established by the medical evidence that the deceased, before his death, was dragged and knife was inserted on the left side of his chest by Lotan. It is also proved that body of the deceased was taken to the Hospital from the house of Kishan. It is also established that Lotan, Kishan and Shivdei had enmity with the deceased and Shivdei, prior to the incident, had lodged a report against the deceased. We although find variations in the testimony of witnesses about narration of the incident but that itself , is no ground to reject their testimony. The Apex Court in Ramni vs. State of M.P, (11), indicated that “when an eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some ‘discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can necessarily make his testimony non discrepant. The Apex Court in Ramni vs. State of M.P, (11), indicated that “when an eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some ‘discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can necessarily make his testimony non discrepant. But court should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is unrealistic approach approach from judicial scrutiny.” Conduct of Lotan, Kishan and Shivdei, as unfolded during the course of incident goes to show that all the three had common intention which animated them to commit a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. From the evidence it is established that there was a premeditated conduct to kill Jadveer Singh. But so far as charges against Satish Kumar are concerned we find that as he was not named in the FIR, the prosecution could not establish his participation in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. 22. To substantiate the submissions in regard to delay in recording the statements of witnesses by the police, unnatural conduct of witnesses and the suspicion about FIR, learned counsel placed reliance on Ronal vs. State of Haryana (12), Kanhai Mishra vs. State of Bihar (13), Suresh vs. State of Bihar (14), Daljeet Singh vs. State of Punjab (15), Deen Dayal vs. Raj Kumar (16), and Charan Singh vs. State of Haryana (17). We have carefully gone through the ratio propounded in the said judgments and we are of the view that these cases are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 23. For the reasons aforementioned, we see no merit in the appeals of Lotan, Kishan Singh and Shukhdei Shivdei and they accordingly stand dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to them by the learned trial judge shall stand confirmed. 23. For the reasons aforementioned, we see no merit in the appeals of Lotan, Kishan Singh and Shukhdei Shivdei and they accordingly stand dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to them by the learned trial judge shall stand confirmed. Appeal preferred by the appellant Satish Kumar stands allowed and conviction and sentence awarded to him by the learned trial judge stands set aside and he is acquitted of the charges under Sections 3 02/149, 147 and 148 of the IPC. Appellant Satish Kumar who is in custody, shall be set at liberty forthwith if nor required in any other case. Appellant Sukhdei @ Shiv Dei is on bail, she shall surrender to serve out the sentence. Warrants of arrest shall be issued to take her in custody forthwith. Impugned judgment of the learned trial judge stands modified as indicated above. Deputy Registrar Judicial is directed to forthwith remit the record ot this case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur in view of its letter dated March 5, 2002.