M. CHAUDHARY, J. This is an appeal filed by the accused appellants from judgment and order dated 30th of September 1981 passed by Sessions Judge Agra in Sessions Trial No. 540 of 1980, State v. Ram Sahai & others, convicting appellant Gopal under Section 302 IPC and Ram Sahai under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life thereunder. Co-accused Thakuri was acquitted by the trial Court. 2. Co-accused Ram Sahai who also filed the appeal alongwith Gopal was reported having died and hence his appeal stood abated vide order dated 24-11-2003. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that civil litigation was going on between the first informants father Babu Ram and others on the one hand and Kamlesh Kumari and others on the other over a house and Ram Sahai was doing pairvi of the opponents. At about 2. 30 p. m. on 3rd of December 1979 he and his father Babu Ram were going towards the market and as they reached in front of the shop of Ram Sahai situate in the same locality Ram Sahai alongwith his son Gopal and cousin Thakuri started hurling abuses on him. Thakuri and Ram Sahai stated that he had compelled them to go to the High Court and now they would see him and at the exhortation of Thakuri, Ram Sahai caught hold of Babu Ram and Gopal gave him knife blows and sustaining the fatal injuries Babu Ram fell down on the ground. The cries raised by Jagdish Prasad attracted one Gyan Singh, Hira Lal, Chandra Bhan and Pooran to the scene of occurrence who witnessed the incident. The miscreants ran away in the lane. Immediately Jagdish Prasad with the help of others took his injured father to SNM Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Then Jagdish Prasad went to the police station Firozabad (south) situate at a short distance and lodged an FIR of the occurrence which was taken down by the police. The Head Moharrir prepared check report of the said crime at that very time i. e. 4. 00 p. m. and made entry regarding registration of the crime in the general diary also (Exts. Ka-1 & Ka-2 ). The Head Moharrir prepared check report of the said crime at that very time i. e. 4. 00 p. m. and made entry regarding registration of the crime in the general diary also (Exts. Ka-1 & Ka-2 ). SI Veer Pal Singh to whom investigation of the crime was entrusted directed SI Natthi Lal Sharma to go to the SNM Hospital Firozabad to draw inquest proceedings on the dead body of Babu Ram. The investigating officer went at the scene of occurrence where he inspected the site and prepared its site plan map (Ext. Ka-7 ). He collected blood stained and simple earth from the site and prepared their memo (Ext. Ka-8 ). He also recorded statements of the witnesses and did other necessary things. 4. SI Natthi Lal Sharma went to the hospital, drew inquest proceedings on the dead body of Babu Ram and prepared inquest report (Ext. ka-2) and other necessary papers , (Exts. Ka-3 to Ka-5) and after getting the dead body in a sealed cover locked in the mortuary directed constables Bhagwan Das and Tikam Singh for the post mortem. 5. Autopsy on the dead body of Babu Ram was conducted by Dr. V. B. Bansal Medical Officer SNM Hospital Firozabad on 4th of December 1979 at 12. 30 noon which revealed below noted ante mortem injuries on the dead body: (1) Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep over the right side hypochondrium 13 cm below the right nipple. (2) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on left side abdomen 6 cm left to umbilicus. (3) Incised wound 3 cm x 0. 5 cm x skin deep over the left shoulder. 6. On an internal examination peritoneum was found lacerated and abdominal cavity contained about 3 Ib of blood and food particles. The stomach contained 12 ozs of semi digested food. Small intestine and liver were lacerated. The doctor opined that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries about one day ago. 7. Blood stained clothes of the deceased and blood stained and simple earth were got sent to Forensic Science Laboratory U. P. for chemical examination if those articles contained human blood and if so of the same blood group. 7. Blood stained clothes of the deceased and blood stained and simple earth were got sent to Forensic Science Laboratory U. P. for chemical examination if those articles contained human blood and if so of the same blood group. According to the Serologists report the blood stained clothes contained human blood of blood group b and the blood stained earth was found disintegrated and no opinion could be given thereabout. 8. After completing investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused. 9. After framing of the charge against the accused prosecution examined Jagdish Prasad (PW 1), Gyan Singh (PW 2) and Chandra Bhan (PW 3) as eye witnesses of the occurrence. Testimony of the remaining witnesses is more or less of formal nature. PW 4 SI Natthi Lal Sharma who conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body of Babu Ram has proved the inquest papers. PW 5 SI Veer Pal Singh, the investigating officer who investigated the crime and submitted charge sheet against the accused has proved the police papers. PW 6 Dr. V. B. Bansal Medical Officer SNM Hospital Firozabad District Agra who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Babu Ram proved the post mortem report stating that ante mortem injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature. 10. The accused appellant denied the occurrence altogether stating that they have been implicated in the case falsely. However, co-accused Ram Sahai admitted in his statement that he and Thakuri happened to be the cousin brothers. 11. On a conspectus of evidence on record the case of the prosecution commended itself to the learned trial Judge who recorded conviction of the accused appellants sentencing each of them as stated above. 12. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment the appellants preferred this appeal for redress. 13. Appeal filed by appellant Ram Sahai stood abated as he was reported having died. 14. We heard the appellants learned counsel and the learned AGA for the State as well. 15. After going through the record and the impugned judgment we find that PW 1 Jagdish Prasad son of the deceased and the first informant deposed all the facts of the occurrence from the beginning to the end as stated above. PW 2 Gyan Singh and PW 3 Chandra Bhan who resided in the same locality corroborated him stating likewise. 15. After going through the record and the impugned judgment we find that PW 1 Jagdish Prasad son of the deceased and the first informant deposed all the facts of the occurrence from the beginning to the end as stated above. PW 2 Gyan Singh and PW 3 Chandra Bhan who resided in the same locality corroborated him stating likewise. All the three eye witnesses were subjected to cross-examination but nothing useful to the accused appellants could be elicited therefrom. The sworn testimony of the three eye witnesses stands well corroborated by the FIR of the occurrence lodged at the police station promptly and the medical evidence and we find ourselves in agreement with the findings recorded by the Court below against the accused appellant. However the appellants learned counsel has advanced following arguments and now we shall see if any of them has got any force. 16. It has first been argued by the appellants learned counsel that the FIR is ante timed and it was lodged after consultations. In order to substantiate his said contention his argument is two fold: (i) crime number and other particulars of the crime have not been mentioned at the top of the inquest report (ii) time of lodging FIR has not been mentioned against the relevant column therein. In our considered view the said argument advanced by the appellants learned counsel has got no substance. A perusal of the inquest report goes to show that inquest proceedings on the dead body of Babu Ram were started at 5. 00 p. m. that very evening on 3rd of December 1979 in SNM Hospital Firozabad and concluded at 6. 30 p. m. Crime number and other particulars of the crime and time of lodging FIR are mentioned in the body of the inquest report at page 2. PW 4 SI Natthi Lal Sharma who drew inquest proceedings on the dead body deposed that after preparing inquest papers he got the dead body in a sealed cover locked in the mortuary at the Hospital and entrusted the same to constables Bhagwan Das and Tikam Singh for post mortem. The occurrence took place in front of the shop of the accused appellants in the market at 2. The occurrence took place in front of the shop of the accused appellants in the market at 2. 30 p. m. and immediately injured Babu Ram was rushed to SNM Hospital by his son Jagdish Prasad and others where he succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained by him after a little while. Then Jagdish Prasad, son of the deceased went to the police station Firozabad (South) and lodged an FIR of the occurrence with the police there at 4. 00 p. m. the same evening (Ext. Ka-3 ). A perusal of the FIR and GD entry regarding registration of the crime (Exts. Ka-1 & Ka-6) goes to show that FIR was taken down at the police station and crime was registered against the accused for the murder of Babu Ram at the instance of Jagdish Prasad son of the deceased on 3rd of December 1979 at 4. 00 p. m. There is no plausible reason to doubt the veracity of the GD entry regarding registration of the crime prepared by the police official in the discharge of his official duties. PW 1 Jagdish Prasad, son of the deceased and the first informant has not been cross-examined at all on the point. He was not given a suggestion even that FIR of the occurrence was not lodged by him at the police station at 4. 00 p. m. or it was lodged sometime subsequently after having consultations. In fact the FIR was lodged at the police station without losing any time so promptly that virtually there was no time for any deliberations or confabulation in order to spin out a false story. A perusal of the FIR goes to show that it is quite natural and spontaneous. Hence the said argument advanced by the appellants learned counsel is repelled. 17. Secondly, it has been argued by the appellants learned counsel that since PW 1 Jagdish is the son of the deceased and PW 3 Chandra Bhan his tenant residing in a portion of his house both are interested witnesses and PW 2 Gyan Singh is a chance witness, their testimony should not be relied upon. PW 1 Jagdish son of the deceased narrated all the facts of the incident deposing succinctly that at about 2. PW 1 Jagdish son of the deceased narrated all the facts of the incident deposing succinctly that at about 2. 30 p. m. the alleged noon he alongwith his father was going to the market and as they reached in front of the shop of Ram Sahai he alongwith his son Gopal and cousin Thakuri started hurling abuses on Babu Ram stating that he had compelled them to approach the High Court and now they will see him; that then at the exhortation of Thakuri, Ram Sahai caught hold of Babu Ram and Gopal gave him knife blows causing fatal injuries to him; that immediately he accompanied with I Hira Lal taking his injured father rushed to the SNM Hospital but injured Babu Ram died after a little while there and that thereafter he went to the police station and lodged an FIR of the occurrence with the police there. FIR lodged at the police station with promptitude lends valuable corroboration to his ocular testimony. PW 2 Gyan Singh and PW 3 Chandra Bhan corroborated him stating likewise. PW 2 Gyan Singh stated that at about 2. 30 p. m. the alleged noon he was going from his godown to his house for taking food and as he reached near the shop of Ghamandi Lal he saw Ram Sahai, Gopal and Thakuri in front of their shop situate nearby and Ram Sahai was abusing Babu Ram telling him that he had compelled them to go to the High Court and shouting that he should be caught ; that Ram Sahai caught hold of Babu Ram and Gopal gave him knife blows ; that sustaining the injuries Babu Ram fell down and that he was rushed to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. PW 3 Chandra Bhan also deposed that at about 2:30 p. m. the alleged noon he was standing at the shop of Ganga Ram for tea and saw all the three accused present there and Ram Sahai was asking Babu Ram that he had led them to the High Court and now they will see him; that immediately at the exhortation of Thakuri Ram Sahai caught hold of Babu Ram and Gopal gave him knife blows and that sustaining fatal injuries Babu Ram fell down. Both these witnesses are residents of the same locality in which the alleged incident took place. Both these witnesses are residents of the same locality in which the alleged incident took place. Admittedly litigation between Babu Ram and others on one hand and Smt. Rupa Devi and others on the other was going on and was pending at the time of the said incident and PW 3 Chandra Bhan was also one of the plaintiffs in that case. The accused appellant admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that his father Ram Sahai used to do pairvi of opponents Rupa Devi and others in that case. PW 2 Gyan Singh admitted in his cross-examination that his sons Mahesh Chandra, Hari Om and Om Prakash were prosecuted for the murder of Shakuntala wife of Shiv Sahai. However he pleaded ignorance if accused Ram Sahai stood as a witness against his sons who were the accused. However a perusal of certified copy of the charge sheet goes to show that in that murder case Ram Sahai figured as a prosecution witness (Ext. Kha-1 ). No doubt that neither of these two witnesses may be termed as wholly an independent witness, but on this ground alone sworn testimony of these witnesses can not be thrown over board if on close scrutiny their testimony is found to be above reproach. Nothing tangible to discredit their testimony has come on the record. There is nothing to cast cloud on the testimony of these eye witnesses who stated all the facts of the incident witnessed by them and very well explained their presence at the scene of occurrence. Moreover if any of the witnesses is related to the deceased it would add to the value of his evidence if found reliable because he would naturally be interested in ensuring that real culprits are punished and not screened. The said argument advanced by the appellants learned counsel therefore has got no life. 18. Thirdly, it has also been argued by the appellants learned counsel that it was a case of broad day light murder and the incident would have been witnessed by many of the shop keepers and the persons present in the market but no independent witness was examined by the prosecution in its support. 18. Thirdly, it has also been argued by the appellants learned counsel that it was a case of broad day light murder and the incident would have been witnessed by many of the shop keepers and the persons present in the market but no independent witness was examined by the prosecution in its support. No doubt it would have been better if the prosecution would have examined any of the independent witnesses but non-examination of any of such witnesses would not cause any ripple affecting the case. Once the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is believed the alleged infirmities arising out of non-examination of independent witness would not go to demolish or introduce an element of doubt in the prosecution case. Moreover it is a matter of common experience that people keep themselves away from the Courts unless it is inevitable as they do not want to invite trouble for themselves. 19. Fourthly, it has also been argued by the appellants learned counsel that ocular testimony is inconsistent with the medical evidence as the alleged occurrence took place at about 2. 30 p. m. and post mortem conducted on the dead body next day at 12. 30 noon revealed that rigor mortis was present all over the body. He argued that since rigor mortis was found present all over the dead body the incident must have occurred at some late hour in the night. The said argument advanced by the appellants learned counsel is misconceived. The incident took place in the month of December at about 2. 30 p. m. and the post mortem was conducted next day at 12. 30 noon i. e. within 22 hours of the death. According to Modis Medical Jurisprudence in Northern India the usual period of rigor mortis is 24 to 48 hours in winter season as generally the rigor mortis sets in one to two hours after death, is well developed from head to foot in about 12 hours, is maintained for about 12 hours and passes off in about next 12 hours. Since post mortem was conducted within twenty two hours of the death rigor mortis was found present all over the dead body. Thus the medical evidence is not inconsistent with the ocular testimony. Since post mortem was conducted within twenty two hours of the death rigor mortis was found present all over the dead body. Thus the medical evidence is not inconsistent with the ocular testimony. Rather it lends support to the prosecution version that the incident took place at the time as alleged by the prosecution and deposed by the witnesses. 20. Lastly, the appellants learned counsel argued that PW 1 Jagdish son of the deceased deposed that the assailants caught hold of Babu Ram and attacked him on the road itself in the middle thereof whereas the investigating officer found blood near the drain on the road side and thus the place of occurrence is shifted. In our view the said argument advanced by the appellants learned counsel is totally devoid of any force. Because even if any of the assailants caught hold of the victim at the time of assault the victim could not have remained stationary at that very point as on receiving the injuries he must have floundered and moved few paces on either side. And therefore, there is nothing strange if the investigating officer found blood on the road side. 21. Resultantly, we subscribe to the view taken by the trial Judge and confirm the finding of guilt recorded by the Court below against the accused appellant. 22. The appellants learned counsel also contended that since accused appellant was of tender years of age he should have been given the benefit of the provisions under U. P. Children Act in force at that time. The said argument advanced by the appellants learned counsel does not appeal to us. Admittedly statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 21st of September 1981 and in his statement he stated that he was 18 years of age at that time and thus according to the appellant himself he was above 16 years of age on the date of occurrence and hence he is not entitled to the benefit claimed under the Act aforesaid. 23. The appeal is dismissed and conviction of accused appellant Gopal under Section 302 I PC and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder are affirmed. The appellant is on bail. He shall be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence imposed upon him. 23. The appeal is dismissed and conviction of accused appellant Gopal under Section 302 I PC and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder are affirmed. The appellant is on bail. He shall be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence imposed upon him. The office is directed to send certified copy of this judgment along with record of the case to the lower Court immediately to ensure compliance within two months under intimation to this Court. Appeal dismissed. .