M. C. JAIN, J. There are two appellants, namely, Nar Singh and Shiv Raj Singh. They have been convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by judgment dated 23-12-1980 passed by Sri R. C. Gupta, the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in S. T. No. 629 of 1979. There was a third accused Jai Singh also who was tried with them, but he was acquitted. 2. Accused appellant Nar Singh and the acquitted accused Jai Singh were said to be cousins and the other accused appellant Shiv Raj Singh was allegedly their relative as Mausera brother. All of them resided in village Pipraula, Police Station Kant, district Shahjahanpur. The deceased was Chhote Singh son of Hira Singh. The incident took place of 4-10-1979 at 9. 30 a. m. near culvert of Khajwa in village Pipraula, aforesaid. The FIR was lodged by Har Pal Singh PW 1 son of the deceased the same day at 11. 00 a. m. the distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was about six kms. 3. The background was that three months prior to the incident she buffalo of the accused appellant Nar Singh had been stolen and he suspected Chhote Singh (deceased) to be suspected Chhote Singh (deceased) to be the thief. He had lodged an FIR against him, but police found that the FIR lodged by Nar Singh was false. To say in a word, no action was taken by the police on his theft report. Therefore, he (Nar Singh) bore grudge against the deceased Chhote Singh. Chhote Singh was also being prosecuted on a charge under Section 436 IPC report of which had been lodged by Sri Krishna son of Puran. 4-10-1979 was the date fixed in that case and the deceased Chhote Singh and his son Harpal Singh left their village Pipraula on cycles for attending the case. Both were on separate cycles. Chhote Singh was ahead about 20 paces followed by his son Harpal Singh. As soon as Chhote Singh reached Khajwa culvert near milestone No. 10 accused appellant Nar Singh armed with lathi accused-appellant Shiv Raj Singh armed with a Kanta and the acquitted accused Jai Singh armed with a spear came out from beneath the culvert. Nar Singh challenged the deceased whereupon he (Chhote Singh-deceased) left his cycle and turned back towards his village and fled. Nar Singh challenged the deceased whereupon he (Chhote Singh-deceased) left his cycle and turned back towards his village and fled. All the accused then chased him and at a distance of about 30 paces towards south of Khajwa culvert caught hold of him and started assaulting him with their respective weapons. He raised alarm on which witnesses Ahbaran Singh PW 2, Lakhan and Misri rushed up for his help. When they challenged the accused, they dropped the body of Chhote Singh in a small pit situate toward east of the road, making their escape good towards west. Harpal Singh saw the occurrence from a distance and remained shouting for help. Chhote Singh died at the spot itself. Harpal Singh sent information of the incident to his village. His maternal uncle Rameshwar came there. He got a report scribed which he took to the Police Station and lodged the same there. Chick FIR was prepared and a case registered. 4. The case was investigated by H. S. Tomar PW 3 who was posted as Second Officer at the Police Station. After examining Harpal Singh at the Police Station itself, he proceeded to the spot and reaching there he prepared inquest report of the dead body of the deceased and other necessary documents. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared by him and blood and simple earth was also taken in possession. The cycle of the deceased and one pair of rubber chappals had been found at the spot which he took in custody and sealed. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 5-10-1979 at 3. 00 p. m. by Dr. U. C. Srivastava PW 4. The deceased was aged about 50 years and about 1-1/2 day had passed since he died. 5. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased: (1) Incised wound of the size of 5 cm x 3 cm x bone deep over the left side of the forehead just above the left eye-brow. (2) Incised wound of the size of 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep over the left side of forehead 2 cm above injury No. 1. (3) Contusion of the size of 5 cm x 3 cm on the middle of forehead. (2) Incised wound of the size of 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep over the left side of forehead 2 cm above injury No. 1. (3) Contusion of the size of 5 cm x 3 cm on the middle of forehead. (4) Incised wound of the size of 1 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right side of forehead, 4 cm above the right eye-brow. (5) Contusion of the size of 6 cm x 3 cm over front of head, 4 cm above forehead. (6) Incised wound of the size of 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, 3 cm back of right ear. (7) Incised wound of the size of 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the upper part of back of neck 1 cm behind injury No. 6. (8) Lacerated wound of the size of 2 cm x 1 cm x through and through on the right side of upper lip with fracture of upper jaw. (9) Lacerated wound of the size of 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the top of head. (10) Contusion of the size of 10 cm x 8 cm over back of lower third of right hand. Both bones of the arm were fractured. (11) Incised wound of the size of 4 cm x 1 cm x through and through on the middle of the outer part of right ear. (12) Contusion of the size of 6 cm x 4 cm over the upper part of left forearm in front. (13) Lacerated wound of the size of 1 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the upper part of left leg. (14) Contusion of the size of 3 cm x 3 cm on the right side of cheek. (15) Contusion of the size of 10 cm x 4 cm on the left side of chest with fracture of 4th to 8th ribs. 6. On internal examination, fractures of frontal, both the parietal and occipital bones were found. Maxillary bones and base of skull were also found fractured with deposit of blood. Membranes were lacerated. Brain was lacerated with deposit of blood. Base was fractured, 4th to 8th ribs of left side of chest were fractured under injury No. 15. Pleura was lacerated on left side. Left lung was lacerated. Stomach contained about 3 ounces of semi digested food. Membranes were lacerated. Brain was lacerated with deposit of blood. Base was fractured, 4th to 8th ribs of left side of chest were fractured under injury No. 15. Pleura was lacerated on left side. Left lung was lacerated. Stomach contained about 3 ounces of semi digested food. Gases were present in small intestine and the gases and faecal matter were present in large intestine. The death had occurred due to coma as a result of head injury. 7. The investigation was completed by S. I. Sudhir Singh Kushwaha who ultimately submitted charge- sheet in the case. The defence was of denial. 8. The prosecution examined two eye-witnesses Harpal Singh PW 1 and Ahbaran Singh PW 2. H. S. Tomar PW 3 was the first Investigating Officer and Dr. U. C. Srivastava PW 4 had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 9. The prosecution evidence found favour with the lower Court as against the present two accused- appellants who were convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabvoe. Jai Singh was, however, acquitted because he was allegedly armed with a spear, but no punctured wound was found on the person of the deceased. The matter is now in appeal before this Court at the behest of the accused-appellants Nar Singh and Shiv Raj Singh. 10. We have heard Sri Sikandar Bharat Kochar, holding brief of Sri P. N. Lal, learned Counsel for the accused appellants and Sri Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, learned AGA from the side of the State in opposition of the appeal. The record is before us which we have carefully perused. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the motive for the commission of the crime was too weak to be believed, that there were contradictions in the testimony of two eye-witnesses and that Ahbaran PW 2 was grouped with the prosecution and inimical to the accused-appellants. On these premises, he urged that the impugned judgment is not sustainable. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the accused- appellants having regard to the evidence on record and attending circumstances. 12. So far as the question of motive is concerned, it is the hidden string of human action which is not easily fathomable. To say in other words, it is concealed in the heart of a man. 12. So far as the question of motive is concerned, it is the hidden string of human action which is not easily fathomable. To say in other words, it is concealed in the heart of a man. The prosecution can only bring to surface what is known to it with regard to the motive aspect. In the case at hand, it is not acceptable that the motive assigned by the prosecution against accused appellants was weak or tenuous. Behavioural tendencies are not uniform in human beings. While some keep their cool even on grave provocation or great loss caused to them by the other side, others are driven to extreme criminal action over trivial issues. It was admitted by Nar Singh accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that his she buffalo had been stolen and he had lodged a report of theft against the deceased Chhote Singh. According to him, police initiated criminal proceedings against deceased Chhote Singh. There is no document on record either on behalf of the prosecution or from the side of the accused-appellants to show the Chhote Singh had been prosecuted for theft of she buffalo on the basis of the FIR lodged by Nar Singh. The statement of Harpal Singh PW 1 is that the police had found the FIR of theft of she-buffalo lodged by Nar Singh accused appellant against his father to be false and no prosecution was launched on the basis of the same. For this reason, Nar Singh was inimical against his father. It is obvious that Nar Singh believed Chhote Singh deceased to have stolen his she-buffalo and it was natural that he nursed grudge against him on this score. No doubt, the motive was trivial, but as we said, sometimes trivial issue also actuates the accused to commit serious crime. It is not surprising that Nar Singh with the aid of his relative Shiv Raj Singh subjected Chhote Singh to the orgy of murderous assault owing to such motive. It is also well known that motive is not very significant when there is direct evidence, as is the case here. In our opinion, the prosecution surfaced the background truthfully. 13. Let us now address ourselves to the criticism levelled against the eye-witnesses. It is also well known that motive is not very significant when there is direct evidence, as is the case here. In our opinion, the prosecution surfaced the background truthfully. 13. Let us now address ourselves to the criticism levelled against the eye-witnesses. Harpal Singh PW 1 is the son of the deceased and PW 2 is Ahbaran Singh and is named as eye-witnesses in the FIR. True, Ahbaran Singh PW 2 was associated with the deceased in two litigations. In a case under Section 324 IPC he was accused with the deceased Chhote Singh. Proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr. P. C. also took place between Rameshwar on the one hand and deceased Chhote Singh on the other. Witness Ahbaran Singh PW 2 was in the party of the deceased Chhote Singh. Therefore, it cannot be denied that Ahbaran Singh was grouped with Chhote Singh. He, therefore, should be termed as an interested witness. However, it is settled position of law that the evidence of close relative and interested witness cannot be rejected outrightly. The same is to be scrutinized with care and caution on the anvil of reliability. In the instant case, the testimony of two eye-witnesses, though interested, does not suffer from any noticeable contradiction or inconsistency. The prosecution proved on record that Chhote Singh was accused in a case under Section 436 IPC and 4-10-1979 was the date fixed in the case. Har Pal Singh PW 1 was accompanying his father to attend that case. It is quite common that when an accused goes to attend the Court of Sessions, he generally takes someone of his family members as his companion for moral support and for assistance in case necessity arises. So, there is nothing unusual that Har Pal Singh PW 1 was accompanying his father Chhote Singh when the latter was going to attend Sessions Court for the hearing of a case against him. Thus, there was plausible explanation for Har Pal Singhs presence with his father at the relevant time, he and his father having started from the village to reach Shahjahanpur to attend the Sessions Court. He was following his father on a separate cycle. 14. Thus, there was plausible explanation for Har Pal Singhs presence with his father at the relevant time, he and his father having started from the village to reach Shahjahanpur to attend the Sessions Court. He was following his father on a separate cycle. 14. Ahbaran Singh PW 2 whose name finds place as witness in the promptly lodged FIR also satisfactorily explained his presence at the spot that he was going from his village to the town of Shahjahanpur on foot with Lakhan Singh and Misri to make sundry purchases. When he was near the temple of Brahmadeo, deceased Chhote Singh crossed him on cycle and proceeded ahead being followed on another cycle by his son Har Pal Singh who too crossed this witness. He has emphatically stated that when Chhote Singh reached near culvert of Khajwa, the assailants emerged from beneath the culvert and assaulted him. Nar Singh was armed with lathi and the other assailant Shiv Raj Singh was armed with Kanta. Both of them wielded their weapons when Chhote Singh, leaving his cycle had turned back. Receiving injuries, Chhote Singh fell down near the culvert. He, Lakhan and Misri raised shouts and seeing them approaching the accused persons ran away after kicking aside Chhote Singh in a small pit. A look at the post-mortem report would show that he, in all, received 15 injuries. Out of them six were incised wounds and rest were lacerated wounds and contusions. Such injuries were capable of being caused by lathi and Kanta wielded by two accused appellants. 15. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants persuaded us to disbelieve the testimony of Har Pal Singh PW 1 on the ground that he was not an injured witness. The argument cannot be accepted. The wrath of the accused was against Chhote Singh and it was not necessary that they would have targeted his son Har Pal Singh also. Further, Har Pal Singh did not physically interfere in the mission of the accused. It is not at all surprising that he escaped unhurt. As against Ahbaran Singh PW 2, learned Counsel for the appellants made reference to a sentence spoken by the Investigating Officer. H. S. Tomar, PW 3 in his cross-examination that Brahmadeo (temple) was at a distance of 3/4 km. from the culvert of Khajwa. It is not at all surprising that he escaped unhurt. As against Ahbaran Singh PW 2, learned Counsel for the appellants made reference to a sentence spoken by the Investigating Officer. H. S. Tomar, PW 3 in his cross-examination that Brahmadeo (temple) was at a distance of 3/4 km. from the culvert of Khajwa. It was urged that Ahbaran Singh PW 2 allegedly witnessed the incident while he was near Brahmadeo and the distance of the place of incident (culvert of Khajwa) bring 3/4 km. , he could not at all see the incident. We have not the slightest doubt that the Investigating Officer happened to mis- describe such distance by slip of tongue. There is valid reason for our this conclusion. In the site-plan. Brahmadeo is shows a little southward from the culvert of Khajwa. Had it been at a distance of 3/4 km. , the same would not have been depicted in the site-plan at all. It goes without saying that only the immediate surrounding of the place of occurrence are depicted in the site- plan. There was no obstruction between Brahmadeo and the place of incident. Ahbaran Singh PW 2 therefore, could very well witness the incident. 16. We neither find any material contradiction in the testimonial assertions of the two eye-witnesses nor any other factor casting cloud on their presence at the spot and the factum of their having witnessed the incident. Their evidence is in conformity with the medical evidence, as we mentioned a little earlier. It would also be relevant to state that three ounces of semi-digest food material was found in the stomach of the deceased. It shows that he had taken breakfast in the early morning as he had to attend the Court for the full day. His small intestine was empty containing gases only. The incident took place at about 9. 30 a. m. The stomach and intestine condition of the deceased reconciles with the prosecution case and shatters another argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the deceased was assaulted sometime in early hours of the morning. Had he been assaulted and done to death in early hours of the morning, his stomach would not have contained three ounces of semi- digested food. Had he been assaulted and done to death in early hours of the morning, his stomach would not have contained three ounces of semi- digested food. Rather, it would have empty as in the early hours of the morning entire food taken by him in the night would have been digested and left the stomach. 17. It was next argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants to castigate the testimony of eye- witnesses that abrasions were not found as ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased as per the post-mortem report though after being assaulted, he was allegedly dragged and thrown in a small pit as per the testimony of Har Pal Singh PW 1 and Ahbaran Singh PW 2. It is to be pointed out in this regard that Investigating Officer had found the dead body at point a as depicted in the site plan and the blood was found nearby at point c. Cycle and pair of rubber chappals had been found at point b in northern side. Such actual position found by the Investigating Officer is in complete agreement with the prosecution case. The deceased was going from southern side (from his village Pipraula) to Shahjahanpur in the northern side. The culvert of Khajwa was a little further north from point b. The assailants had emerged from beneath the culvert and challenged the deceased Chhote Singh, whereafter he turned back and fled, leaving his cycle and chappals but chased and assaulted by his assailants. The absence of abrasions or scratch marks does not falsify the prosecution version. Rather the evidence of Har Pal Singh PW 1 and Ahbaran Singh PW 2 that after being assaulted Chhote Singh deceased was dragged and thrown in a small pit has to be interpreted in a logical and reasonable manner that after assaulting him, the assailants just kicked or pushed aside him in a nearby pit to express their hatred against him and sense of satisfaction over having accomplished their mission. 18. Having addressed ourselves to all the relevant aspects of the matter, were find that the two accused appellants have rightly been held to be guilty for the offence for which have been punished. No doubt, there was an element of doubt with regard to third accused Jai Singh, who was allegedly armed with a spear, as no punctured wound had been found on his person. No doubt, there was an element of doubt with regard to third accused Jai Singh, who was allegedly armed with a spear, as no punctured wound had been found on his person. But the benefit could go only to him, and not to the present two accused appellants with regard to whom there is no ripple whatsoever in the testimony adduced by the prosecution. 19. To come to a close, we do not find any merit in this appeal and we hereby dismiss it. The accused appellants Nar Singh and Shiv Raj Singh are on bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur shall cause them to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment passed against them. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith record of the case be immediately sent to the Court below for reporting compliance to this Court within two months from the date of receipt. Appeal dismissed. .