Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-Appellants Ram Babu and Radheshyam who have been held guilty for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. one thousand each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year vide order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Behror, Distt. Alwar dated 12.07.2001 have filed the present appeal. The obvious prayer in the appeal is to set-aside the order to conviction and sentence dated 12.07.2001. 2. The appellants as per the prosecution version murdered Suraj Bhan on 30.03.1999 at 09.30 a.m. The first information report (Exhibit P-1) with regard to occurrence was lodged by Shiv Charan (PW. 1), the real brother of deceased on 30.03.1999 at 01.30 p.m. it was a written report and received by Rajendra Kumar Sharma, SHO Police Station, Shahjahanpur. The special report regarding incident reached Judl. Magistrate, Behror on 31.03.1999. 3. While unfolding the chain of events leading to death of Suraj Bhan, it was stated by Shiv Charan P.W. 1in the written report lodged by him that he was a resident of Khandoda. On 22.01.1999 his brother Radheshyam son of Ram Swaroop Sharma of Village Khandoda had teased Kumari Roshni daughter of his brother Suraj Bhan aged 8 years with bad intention. The villagers had convened a Panchayat on 25.01.1999. The Panchayat keeping in view the honour of both the families had admonished Radheshyam and his mother Santara Devi as also the members of their families for this indecent thing done by Radheshyam. They were asked to apologise. Seeking apology, however, annoyed them and on 27.01.1999 Rambabu and Radheshyam sons of Ram Swaroop Sharma gave beatings to Smt. Manju wife of his brother Suraj Bhan and broke her hand regarding which, they lodged the first information report in Police Station, Babal (Haryana). The family of Rambabu and Radheshyam were putting constant pressure on us to compromise the case pertaining to Police Station, Babal (Haryana). They were also having ill will against their family. The family of Rambabu and Radheshyam were putting constant pressure on us to compromise the case pertaining to Police Station, Babal (Haryana). They were also having ill will against their family. On 28.01.1999 the appellants threatened his brother Suraj Bhan that either the case lodged against them should be withdrawn or otherwise, they will finish him on the event-full day on 30.01.1999 when he and his brother Suraj Bhan were harvesting the wheat crop in their fields in Gugalkota that all of a sudden at 09.30 a.m. Rambabu and Radheshyam sons of Ram Swaroop Sharma armed with iron pipe and jaily came there. Rambabu was having iron pipe in his hand whereas Radheshyam had a jaily with iron prongs. The moment they came, they started beating my brother Suraj Bhan. On receipt of injuries, his brother fell down in the fields. While he was lying down, both of them kept on beating him. When I spoke then both of them ran towards him with their respective weapons. When he raised alarm then Anil son of Karan Pal, Mahendra son of Harphool, Mahaveer son of Ghisa Ram and also Ramavatar who were working in the neighbourhood came running there and at that time his brother Satish also came there to give food. When we challenged them then both the brothers ran away. When we looked after our brother Suraj Bhan, we found that he was bleeding from his nose and ears. He had become unconscious. We immediately took him for treatment to Behror Hospital and when he was seen by the Doctor, he declared him dead. Rambabu and Radheshyam sons of Ram Swaroop Sharma because of enmity referred to above, had killed his brother Suraj Bhan by planning the same. 4. In its endeavour to connect the appellants with crime, the prosecution examined Dr. Hari Singh Yadav as PW. 13 who stated that on 30.03.1999 at 02.15 p.m. he had conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of Suraj Bhan aged 35 years. The Dr. found following injuries on the dead-body of Suraj Bhan:- "1. Lacerated wound 1" x ¼" bone deep on posterior aspect of Right ear, obliquely placed. 2. Lacerated wound 1" x ¼" bone deep ¾" posterior to injury No. 1 on occipital region right side, obliquely place. 3. Lacerated wound 1" x ¼" bone deep on occipital region right side ¾"; behind the injury No. 2 obliquely placed. Lacerated wound 1" x ¼" bone deep on posterior aspect of Right ear, obliquely placed. 2. Lacerated wound 1" x ¼" bone deep ¾" posterior to injury No. 1 on occipital region right side, obliquely place. 3. Lacerated wound 1" x ¼" bone deep on occipital region right side ¾"; behind the injury No. 2 obliquely placed. 4. Lacerated wound 3" x ½" bone deep on occipital region behind the injury No. 3. 5. Lacerated wound 3" x ½" bone deep over occipital region right side 1½" above and posterior to injury No. 4 obliquely placed. 6. Lacerated wound 1½" x ½" bone deep on occipital region right side 1½ above and posterior to injury No. 5, obliquely placed. 7. Bruise8" x 3" over mastoid process and posterior aspect of neck right side. 8. Bruise3" x 1" on posterior aspect of right arm. 9. Bruise 14" x 2" over antero lateral aspect of right side chest, obliquely placed. 10. Bruise10" x 2" on right axillary region of chest 3" below and postero lateral to injury No. 9. 10.11. Bruise4" x 1" on infra scapular regionright side. 112. Bruise 4" x 1" on infra scapular region right side 3" below injury No. 11. 113. Bruise 5" x 1" over left scapular region. 114. Bruise1½" x 1" on left upper eye lid. and 115. Swelling 4" x 2" over left fronto parietal region of scalp. 5. In the opinion of the Dr. death was due to coma and shock as a result of head injury and other injuries sustained by Suraj Bhan. All the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. 6. The time which elapsed between the injuries and death was about 5 hours. He proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-14). The prosecution also examined Shiv Charan the first informant as PW. 1, Satish as PW. 2, Manju wife of deceased Suraj Bhan as PW. 5, Anil Kumar as PW. 7. All these witnesses fully supported the prosectuion case. The prosecution also examined Prem Kumar as PW. 3, Mahaveer as PW. 6 and Ramovtar as PW. 15 who turned hostile and were cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. Ram Niwas Patwari of the area was examined as PW. 9 whereas Rajendra Kumar Sharma, the Investigating Officer of the case was examined as PW. 19. 7. Shiv Charan PW. 1 deposed in tune with the first information report lodged by him. 6 and Ramovtar as PW. 15 who turned hostile and were cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. Ram Niwas Patwari of the area was examined as PW. 9 whereas Rajendra Kumar Sharma, the Investigating Officer of the case was examined as PW. 19. 7. Shiv Charan PW. 1 deposed in tune with the first information report lodged by him. In the cross-examination adverted to him he admitted that the father of the appellants was his real uncle. He also admitted that they shared same Haveli that the appellants and that according to Jamabandi Khasra No. 885, 886 and 887 are in the common owner-ship of his father and the father of the appellants. He also stated that he and his brothers were harvesting the crop at a distance of 10 to 15 feet. Suraj Bhan was harvesting the crop by sitting and he was caused injury on his head from back side. He denied the suggestion that he had reached the place of occurrence when appellants after giving beating had left the place. He rather asserted that he was present at a distance of 10 to 15 feet at that time. He further stated that he challenged the appellants but not followed them. He denied the suggestion that the crop being harvested by them belonged to the appellants. He also denied the suggestion that Satish and Mahendra had come later. He admitted that they had joint fields but qualified it by saying that they had partitioned the land at spot. Satish PW. 2 brother of the deceased and PW. 1 Shiv Charan when cross-examined stated that the place where the occurrence had taken place, there was no thoroughfare but near the fields there was a small passage. He denied the suggestion that share of the land of Kesu Ram and Ram Swaroop was wrongly included by Suraj Bhan in his share. Similar suggestions were given to other witnesses as were given by Shiv Charan PW. 1. Manju wife of deceased was examined as PW. 5. In her cross-examination she admitted that compromise with regard to matter of her daughter had taken-place on 25.03.1999 itself , but she stated that the appellants were still having enmity because of that. She denied the suggestion that her husband was not killed by the appellants. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, I.O. and SHO, Police station, Shahjahanpur who was examined as PW. In her cross-examination she admitted that compromise with regard to matter of her daughter had taken-place on 25.03.1999 itself , but she stated that the appellants were still having enmity because of that. She denied the suggestion that her husband was not killed by the appellants. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, I.O. and SHO, Police station, Shahjahanpur who was examined as PW. 19, deposed with regard to steps he had taken while investigating the case. 8. When examined under Section 313, CrPC, the appellants besides denying incriminating material put to them pleaded false implication. They however, led no oral evidence in defence but for producing (Exhibit D1) to (Exhibit D9) on the records. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal contends that the conduct of Shiv Charan PW. 1 and Satish PW. 2 who were real brothers of the deceased is so unnatural that it has to be held that they had not seen the appellants giving injuries to Suraj Bhan. With a view to prop the contention the learned Counsel for the appellants, contends that if Shiv Charan PW. 1 would have actually seen the occurrence, he would have specified with precision the injuries caused by the appellants to Suraj Bhan on different part of his body. He rather chose to give general description of the events by stating that both of them had caused injuries to Suraj Bhan with their respective weapons. He further contends that there were as many as seven persons who could come to rescue Suraj Bhan and it is against normal human conduct that none of them intervened to save Suraj Bhan despite the fact that the assailant were only two in number. Learned Counsel lastly contends that the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses and those who have actually examined namely Prem Kumar PW. 3, Mahaveer, PW. 6 and Ramovtar P.W. 15 did not support the prosecution case. It would be unsafe to convict the appellants on the basis of statements made by interested witnesses closely related to the deceased thus contends the learned Counsel. 10. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we however, do not find any merit in any contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants as noted above. 11. 10. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we however, do not find any merit in any contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants as noted above. 11. It may be recalled that the occurrence had taken-place on 30.03.1999 at 09.30 a.m. and first information report was lodged within four hours. Post-mortem was also conducted in the afternoon of 30.03.1999 itself . Prompt lodging of the FIR in our view, lends credence to the prosecution version and the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of occurrence. If they were not present and had not seen the occurrence, the FIR could not be lodged within a matter of four hours. The appellants it appears to this Court had a motive to commit the crime. The incident pertaining to outraging the modesty of a small girl of 8 years has not been denied. It has rather been stated that the matter was compromised. Further, the prosecution established that there was indeed an incident pertaining to Manju the wife of deceased a couple of months before Suraj Bhan was done to death. The FIR pertaining to said incident has been proved on record as (Exhibit P-13). The case pertaining to injuries sustained by Manju, it has been proved was pending on 30.03.1999 when Suraj Bhan was done to death. In so far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that Shiv Charan PW . 1 and Satish PW . 2 brothers of the deceased did not intervened to save Suraj Bhan and further that when as many as seven persons were available from the side of complainant and even then nobody tried to intervene would suggest non-presence of Shiv Charan PW . 1 and Satish PW . 2, we may say that Rambabu and Radheshyam were armed with deadly weapons. They caused death of Suraj Bhan by giving him multiple injuries. It was a brutal attack. Shiv Charan and Satish brother of Suraj Bhan were not armed at that time. Those who were attracted to the scene of occurrence when Suraj Bhan was being belabored by the appellants were also un-armed. Surely, if any one was to intervene, he would have been subject to the same treatment as given to Suraj Bhan. Shiv Charan and Satish brother of Suraj Bhan were not armed at that time. Those who were attracted to the scene of occurrence when Suraj Bhan was being belabored by the appellants were also un-armed. Surely, if any one was to intervene, he would have been subject to the same treatment as given to Suraj Bhan. It out of fear of being given serious injuries Shiv Charan and Satish did not intervene to save their brother it cannot be said that they were not present at the scene of occurrence. That apart, it all depends on the individual nature and temperament of a person to react to a situation of the kind as in the present case. In a given case, even a stranger may risk his life and save an innocent victim of attack whereas others who may be related to the victim may rather chose to save their own lives first. No doubt, Shiv Charan PW . 1 and Satish PW . 2 were joined by others namely Prem Kumar, PW . 3, Mahaveer PW . 6, AnilKumar PW. 7 and Ramovtar PW . 15 and in the process they were six persons who had seen the appellants giving injuries to Suraj Bhan but only two out of six would be interested in saving the life of Suraj Bhan. Others who were not related would have no interest to intervene in the dispute which was exclusively between close relations. In any case, non-intervention by Prem Kumar, Mahaveer, Anil Kumar and Ramovtar cannot be said to be against normal human conduct. 12. It is no doubt, true, that Prem Kumar, Mahaveer, Anil Kumar and Ramovtar stated to be present at the scene of occurrence did not support the prosecution version as they were declared hostile, but on that count alone, the prosecution version cannot be rejected. As mentioned above, Shiv Charan PW. 1 and Satish PW. 2 real brothers of the deceased have fully supported the prosecution case. These two witnesses and Manju wife of deceased have proved the chain of events relating to death of Suraj Bhan. The incident pertaining to small girl of eight years and beatings given to Manju have been proved. The appellants thus, had a motive to commit the crime. The ocular version is supported by medical evidence. No law requires that evidence provided by the close relations has to be rejected. The incident pertaining to small girl of eight years and beatings given to Manju have been proved. The appellants thus, had a motive to commit the crime. The ocular version is supported by medical evidence. No law requires that evidence provided by the close relations has to be rejected. All that required is that the evidence of close relations who are naturally interested in success of the case should be evaluated with greater care and caution. Shiv Charan PW. 1 and Satish PW. 2, in our view, have given consistent account of the events. They have stood the test of lengthy cross-examinations, their statements are corroborated by medical evidence and further Anil Kumar an independent witness has also corroborated the statements made by them. 13. In our considered view, the prosecution proved the offence committed by the appellants beyond shadow of a reasonable doubt. This Court is of the firm view that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Behror, rightly found them guilty of crime. There is no merit whatsoever, in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed upholding the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Behror, dated 12.07.2001. 14. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 12.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Behror, Distt. Alwar in Sessions Case No. 32/1999 is hereby confirmed.