M. C. JAIN, J. The judgment impugned through this appeal is one dated 28th April, 1981 passed by Sri J. N. Tandon, the then IV Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 455 of 1980. The appellant Udai Veer Singh, Raghubir Singh and Balbir Singh (all sons of Babu Singh) and their father Babu Singh were tried in the said case. Babu Singh has since died during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal has abated respecting him under order dated 24-3-2004. The Court is presently concerned only with the remaining three. Udai Veer Singh has been convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and the remaining accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. with similar sentence of life imprisonment. All of them have also been convicted under Section 342 read with Section 34 I. P. C. with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The relevant facts may be taken note of for proper appreciation. The incident occurred on 7-5-1980 at about 6. 30 a. m. in village Sunamai, PS. Narkhi, District Agra and the FIR. was lodged the same day at 11 a. m. by Sukh Devi PW 2 (wife of the deceased Shafi Khan ). The accused appellants suspected Shafi Khan to have set fire to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh -nephew of Babu Singh in the night of 6-5-1980. They were further annoyed of him as he had refused to do manual labour at their command. In the morning of 7-5-1980 at about 6. 30 a. m. Shafi Khan was sitting on a cot in front of his house with his little baby daughter. The accused appellants came there and asked him that he was summonned by Kishan Veer Singh and that he should accompany them to his Khalihan. Shafi Khan did not agree to accompany them. They then surrounded him and tied with a rope and forcibly took him to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh in whose Khalihan the incident of fire had taken place the previous night. Shafi Khans wife Smt. Sukh Devi PW 2 and his son Lal Mohammad PW 3 as also many other persons followed them to the Khalihan. On reaching the Khalihan, Bahu Singh asked Udai Veer Singh to bring the licensed gun. Shafi Khans wife Smt. Sukh Devi PW 2 and his son Lal Mohammad PW 3 as also many other persons followed them to the Khalihan. On reaching the Khalihan, Bahu Singh asked Udai Veer Singh to bring the licensed gun. Ups brought the licensed gun of his father and Raghubir Singh brought another gun. The accused questioned Shafi Khan whether he had set fire to the Khalihan last night. Shafi Khan denied to have done so. Babu Singh then ordered firing. Udai Veer Singh fired from his gun which hit Shafi Khan on his chest and he fell down. Balbir Singh also opened fire with the gun that he had but the shot did not hit him who had fallen down at the first shot. Shafi Khan died at the spot. Munshi Khan PW 4, Sabira alias Saboo, Narendra, Harbans Kumar alias Hari, Ramesh and many others had also come there and witnessed the incident. After committing the crime, the accused ran away to their house. Smt. Sukh Devi PW 2 then got report scribed by the Pradhan of the village and sent it to the police station through Chaukidar Data Ram who lodged it at the police station at 11 a. m. on 7-5-1980. The case was registered and investigation was taken up by D. D. Dubey S. I. PW 7. Reaching the spot, he prepared inquest report of the dead body of the deceased. After necessary formalities, the dead body was sent for post mortem which was conducted by Dr. Raj Kishore Gupta PW 6 on 8-5-1980 at 1 p. m. The deceased was aged about 32 years and went to 1- 1/2 day had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person. 1. One gunshot wound (would of entry) 3 cm x 3 cm x cavity deep on the front and middle of chest at the level of nipples. Blackening was present. 2. Lacerated wound I cm x I cm on the right side head,6 cm-above the right ear. 3. He had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem gunshot injury No. 1. The Doctor had extracted 28 pellets from the dead body which he sent to the police. 4. The defence was of denial and of false implication due to enmity and party factions. 3. He had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem gunshot injury No. 1. The Doctor had extracted 28 pellets from the dead body which he sent to the police. 4. The defence was of denial and of false implication due to enmity and party factions. Besides medical and formal evidence, including that related to the investigation, the prosecution case was based on the testimony of eyewitnesses Smt. Sukh Devi PW 2, Lal Mohammad PW 3 and Munshi Khan PW 4. The evidence having commended itself to the trial Judge, he convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as related in the opening part of the judgment. 5. We have heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Surendra Singh Yadav learned A. G. A. from the side of the State. The record is before us. 6. It has first been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the FIR. was ante-timed. To support this argument, he made reference to a stray sentence spoken by Munshi Khan PW 4 (eyewitness ). It is to this effect: "daroga Jl JAB MAUKE PAR AYE TAB USKI BAHU NE REPORT LIKHAI AUR MAINE BH1 BAYAN DIYA THA" We are of the opinion that this singular sentence, torn out of context, cannot be unduly strained. He was a rustic villager incapable of even making out his signatures. He had thumb marked his statement given before the lower Court. He could barely make out as to what Daroga was writing was his statement or the report of the wife of the deceased. He did make a statement to the Investigating Officer as he has stated and being illiterate, he could mistakenly refer it to be the report. The clear statement of the Investigating Officer S. I. D. D. Dubey PW 7 is that the F. I. R. of this incident was lodged at the police station in his presence, chik whereof had been scribed by Head Constable Virendra Singh who had also made relating entry in the G. D. No. 22 at 11 a. m. on 7-5-1980. He recorded the statement of village Chaukidar who had taken the F. I. R. to the police station and thereafter proceeded to the spot. He recorded the statement of village Chaukidar who had taken the F. I. R. to the police station and thereafter proceeded to the spot. The testimony of the scribe of the F. I. R. , namely, Basudev PW 1 Pradhan is also there that the report of this incident had been written by him at the dictation of Smt. Sukh Devi PW 2 and she had then thumb-marked the same. It was then sent to the police station through village Chaukidar. To the same effect is the statement of the informant Smt. Sukh Devi PW 2 (wife of the deceased) that the report Exhibit Ka. 1 had been got written by her from Basudev Pradhan PW 1 who read it over to her whereafter she thumb marked it and sent the same to the police station through the village Chaukidar. We are clearly of the opinion that stray sentence spoken by Munshi Khan PW 4 in his cross-examination cannot wipe away the overwhelming effect of other evidence that after the incident the report was written by the Pradhan of the village at the behest of the wife of the deceased and was sent to the police station through the village Chaukidar. We, therefore, reject the argument that the F. I. R. was ante-timed. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants then criticised the testimony of Smt. Sukh Devi PW 2, Lal Mohammad PW 3 and Munshi Khan PW 4 on the ground that they were close relatives of the deceased and were interested persons. True, Smt. Sukh Devi PW 2 is the wife of the deceased, Lal Mohammad PW 3 is the minor son of the deceased who was aged about 10 years when he made statement before the Court on 16-2-1981 and Munshi Khan PW 4 is the uncle of the deceased (his name finds place in the F. I. R. ). After voir dire (preliminary test as to his competence to testify), oath was administered to the child witness Lal Mohammad PW 3 after it was found that he gave rational answers to the questions put to him. Mere relationship is no ground to reject the testimony of these witnesses. If a witness is related to the deceased, he would naturally be interested in ensuring that the real culprit is punished and not screened. Mere relationship is no ground to reject the testimony of these witnesses. If a witness is related to the deceased, he would naturally be interested in ensuring that the real culprit is punished and not screened. Evidence of close relatives of the victim of a crime cannot be doubted on the ground that their deposition was partisan. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture lingering suspicion and thereby injuring social defence. 8. The Supreme Court has held in the case of State of U. P. v. Suresh alias Chhavan and others, AIR 1982 SC 1076 that statement of a family member of the deceased cannot be rejected on the ground that he is related to the victim. What is required is that the statement is to be scrutinized with care. 9. So the testimony of the three eyewitnesses is to be scrutinised and cautiously. As per the statements of Smt. Sukh Devi PW 2 and Lal Mohammad PW 3, the incident started when the four accused came to the house of Shafi Khan at about 6. 30 a. m. on 7-5-1980 and asked him to accompany them to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh. On his not agreeing, they forcibly took him to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh, followed by them (these witnesses ). Munshi Khan PW 4 had also reached there on hearing alarm from the door of Shafi Khan and had seen him being forcibly taken away by the four accused to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh. He, too, had followed them to the Khalihan. As per the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, a fire had taken place in the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh the previous night. Kishan Veer Singh was the nephew of the accused Babu Singh. The accused suspected that fire had been set to the Khalihan by Shafi Khan. The accused wanted to take Shafi Khan to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh to interrogate him on this aspect of the matter for the confirmation of their suspicion. Kishan Veer Singh was the nephew of the accused Babu Singh. The accused suspected that fire had been set to the Khalihan by Shafi Khan. The accused wanted to take Shafi Khan to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh to interrogate him on this aspect of the matter for the confirmation of their suspicion. It is also there in evidence that Shafi Khan was reluctant to go there with the accused and as per the statement of his wife Smt. Sukh Devi PW 2, he had told the accused that he would reach there after sometime, but the accused did not agree to it and forcibly took him to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh. Naturally, Smt. Sukh Devi PW 2 and Lal Mohammad PW 3 being the wife and son respectively of the deceased were the most concerned persons and out of anxiety they followed the accused (who were taking Shafi Khan with them) to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh. Munshi Khan PW 4 being the uncle of the deceased also reached the door of Shafi Khan on hearing alarm therefrom and his conduct of following the accused and Shafi Khan to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh out of anxiety was quite natural, A controversy had surfaced as to whether Shafi Khan had set fire to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh. Everybody around scented that the situation was grim with a possibility of its still taking a more serious turn endangering the safety of Shafi Khan. Under such scenario, it was very natural that wife, son and uncle of Shafi Khan followed him while he was being taken by the accused to the nearby Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh. 10. Smt. Sukh Devi PW 2 has stated that the accused had tied her husband with rope while taking him to the Khalihan of Udai Veer Singh and that they had brought the rope with them. She also stated that while being shot in the Khalihan, he was tied up with the rope and after shooting, the accused ran away with the rope, untying it from the person of Shafi Khan. To the same effect is the statement of the deceaseds son Lal Mohammad PW 3. The statement of Munshi Khan PW. 4 is also to the effect that Shafi Khan was taken by the accused to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer tied with a rope. To the same effect is the statement of the deceaseds son Lal Mohammad PW 3. The statement of Munshi Khan PW. 4 is also to the effect that Shafi Khan was taken by the accused to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer tied with a rope. On a careful consideration of the evidence we are of the view that it cannot be accepted that the accused had come to the door of Shafi Khan with a rope, anticipating that he would not agree to accompany them to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh. Truth has fallen from the lips of Munshi Khan PW 4 that while taking Shafi Khan to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh, the accused did not have any weapon. What seems to be true is that the accused had a suspicion in their mind that Shafi Khan was the author of setting fire to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh. They wanted to talk or discuss the matter with him at the Khalihan. To say it differently, they wanted to interrogate him in this regard at the Khalihan in confirmation or displacement of their suspicion. They could not anticipate beforehand that he would not accompany them to the Khalihan for interrogation and force would be required to be applied to do so in the form of tying him with a rope. The whole incident occurred in one go in a continuous chain right from the time Shafi Khan was taken to the accused to the nearby Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh till he was murdered there. It would be too hypertechnical view to hold that he was in wrongful, confinement of the accused before he was murdered. Though Shafi Khan was reluctant to accompany the accused to Khalihan but on pressure being built upon him by them, he went with them to the Khalihan where he was interrogated about the fire. 11. It does not stand to reason at all that after shooting the victim, the accused untied his rope and ran away therewith. There could hardly be any occasion or opportunity to untie the rope by the accused after murder and to take it away while fleeing. 12. We would also like to observe that in the post mortem report, no evidence of tying with rope, dragging etc. was found on the person of the deceased. There could hardly be any occasion or opportunity to untie the rope by the accused after murder and to take it away while fleeing. 12. We would also like to observe that in the post mortem report, no evidence of tying with rope, dragging etc. was found on the person of the deceased. It should, therefore, reasonably be presumed on proper appreciation of evidence that the deceased had accompanied to the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh without force being applied to him by them, though recluctantly, on mental pressure being built upon him to accompany them. To come to the point, we hold that no offence was committed by the accused till the Shafi Khan reached the Khalihan of Kishan Veer Singh. 13. The testimony of the three eyewitnesses is consistent on the point that in the Khalihan on being questioned, Shafi Khan denied to have set fire to the Khalihan. It is also in evidence of the three eyewitnesses that infuriated by his denial, Babu Singh (deceased-accused appellant) exhorted; Udai Veer Singh opened the first shot which hit the deceased in his chest as a result of which he fell down; Balbir Singh also opened shot but it did not hit Shafi Khan or anybody else. 14. Post-mortem report shows that the deceased had sustained a single shot in his chest which resulted in his death. Ante-mortem injury No. 2 was lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm on the right side of head. It could have been sustained by his fall on the ground on receiving the shot. Dr. Raj Kishore Gupta PW 6 who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, stated that this injury No. 2 was of blunt force. Since blackening was there in the gunshot injury, it was a close range shot. The Doctor had also extracted 28 pellets and one cardboard piece from the injury which further strengthens the conviction that it was a close range shot. 15. The first shot fired by Udai Veer Singh from close range itself being fatal dropping down the victim dead, it is doubtful that Udai Veers brother Balbir would have fired another shot. No role has been assigned to Raghubir Singh accused-third son of Babu Singh insofar as the application of violence to the victim is concerned. Babu Singh himself having died, his alleged exhortation part has become inconsequential. 16. No role has been assigned to Raghubir Singh accused-third son of Babu Singh insofar as the application of violence to the victim is concerned. Babu Singh himself having died, his alleged exhortation part has become inconsequential. 16. At times, the prosecution case is exaggerated and embellished to falsely implicate more members of the family of the opponent. Even only when some members of the rival group are involved in the offence, quite often one finds a tendency also to falsely rope in other members. For doing so, the story is improved and modified to achieve the purpose. In the case at hand, Babu Singh and his three sons were named as the perpetrators of this crime. The possibility cannot be ruled out that after the murder of the victim, his wife, seized of anger, implicated innocent sons of Babu Singh also to place the whole family in a tight corner. A little turn to the prosecution story might have been given with this angle. So far as the surviving three accused appellants (son of Babu Singh deceased-appellants) are concerned, what is proved by satisfactory, convincing and trustworthy evidence adduced on record, taken together with medical examination, is that Shafi Khan was shot dead by Udai Veer Singh. There is no ripple in the testimonial assertions of the three eyewitnesses so far as his guilt is concerned. He alone therefore, is liable to be punished for his murder. The other two accused appellants deserve to be acquitted no guilt having been found to be proved within the ambit of law as per discussion made hereinabove. 17. In the net result, we partly allow this appeal. The conviction of the accused appellant Udai Veer Singh under Section 302 I. P. C. with sentence of life imprisonment is upheld. He shall serve out this sentence awarded by the lower Court. His conviction and sentence under Section 342 I. P. C. read with Section 34 I. P. C. is set aside. 18. The conviction and sentences of the other two surviving accused appellants Raghubir Singh and Balbir Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34-I. P. C. and under Section 342 read with Section 34 I. P. C. are set aside. 19. Babu Singh accused appellant having died, the appeal abated respecting him. 20. 18. The conviction and sentences of the other two surviving accused appellants Raghubir Singh and Balbir Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34-I. P. C. and under Section 342 read with Section 34 I. P. C. are set aside. 19. Babu Singh accused appellant having died, the appeal abated respecting him. 20. The accused appellant Udai Veer Singh whose conviction and sentence under Section 302 I. P. C. has been upheld, shall be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence. 21. The judgment be certified to the lower Court and compliance be reported to this Court within two months from tile date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the record which shall be sent to the Court below forthwith. Appeal partly allowed. .