PER NARGOTRA J: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.2.1995/22.2.1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge Jammu whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of an offence punishable under sec.302-RPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The learned Sessions Judge has made a reference also to this Court u/s 374 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the conviction and sentence of the appellant. 2. The story of the prosecution case unfolded during the trial is that the deceased was a Gazetted Officer and lived in the neighborhood of the accused. The accused having a grouse over some irrigational issue started abusing the deceased and his family in the evening of 12.8.1992. On the objecting of the deceased to the act of the accused, the accused became furious and extended threat to the deceased. However the situation was averted by PW Kanta Devi, wife of the deceased, who took him away from the spot where after the accused, also went to his house. Early next morning i.e. 13.8.1992 when the deceased was asleep on the roof of his house, his daughter PW Anita , who was sleeping in side the house, proceeded to wakeup her mother, at about 5.30 AM.as she was to milk the cow. Her sister Babita Devi was also sleeping on the same roof. As soon as she climbed the roof, she found the accused standing on the roof along side her father pointing a gun towards him. Seeing this she raised an alarm but the accused pulled up the trigger and shot at the deceased when he was fast asleep. The accused after committing the crime started running away from the spot. On hearing the cries of PW Aanita, her mother PW Kanta Devi and her sister PW Babita Devi woke up. All of them rushed towards the injured deceased. On hearing the sound of the gun shot, PW Mela Ram, who was sleeping on the roof of his house, got up and seeing the deceased bleeding and his family members crying while the accused was running, ran after the accused followed by PW Sarwan Kumar. Both of them over-powered the accused when he was attempting to reload the gun and after dis-arming him tied him with a cot with a rope in the room of his house and locked the room from out side. Both of them over-powered the accused when he was attempting to reload the gun and after dis-arming him tied him with a cot with a rope in the room of his house and locked the room from out side. The deceased had breathed his last on the scene of occurrence itself. PW Anita Devi accompanied by PW Thoru Ram and Numberdar Fateh Singh, went to Police Station Ramgarh for lodging the report. She lodged the FIR at 9 AM on 13.8.1992 itself. FIR was registered for commission of an offence u/s 302 RPC. During investigation the dead body of the deceased was seized and postmortem thereon was got conducted. The weapon of offence was also seized, statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge sheet against the accused was laid in the court. 3. The charge for commission of offence u/s 302 RPC was framed against the accused by the Trial Court, to which the accused pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined PWs Anita Devi, Kanta Devi, Babita Devi, Mela Ram, Som Dutt,Sarwan Kumar, Thoru Ram,Fateh Singh, Milkhi Ram,Girdharilal, Krishan Dass, Chamanlal, Ghulam Qadir Malik and Rajinder Singh Jamwal as witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded U/S 342 Cr.P.C. in which the accused on being asked to explain the incriminating circumstances put up total denial to the occurrence. He however, admitted the ownership of the seized gun. The accused also pleaded that he has been sick for some time and occasionally his mind had not been working properly. In defence he examined Dr.Subhash Dogra and Dr.Subhash Gupta,Medical Officers, Central Jail Jammu, besides S.Chanchal Singh, Superintendent Jail for proving his mental ailment during the period he was in custody at the Central Jail. Statement of the accused in order to assess his mental condition has also been recorded by the learned Trial Court. 4. Before the Trial Court the prosecution sought to prove its case against the accused on the basis of direct evidence of PWs Anita Devi, Kanta Devi and Babita Devi and also on the basis of circumstantial evidence of other prosecution witnesses. Learned Trial Court after hearing the prosecution and the defence and appreciating the evidence came to the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt. Learned Trial Court after hearing the prosecution and the defence and appreciating the evidence came to the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt. Accordingly it convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State. 6. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW Dr.C.L.Manwati on 13.8,1992 and he observed the following injuries on the body of the deceased:- A lacerated wound roundish about ½� diameter with ragged inverted margins on the right side of chest front at the level intercostals space in the outer-third part. There were nine lacerated wounds ¼ to ½ cms in diameter on the left side back of the chest roundish in shape, two on super part of scapular region and rest clustered on the lower part of the scapular region. On exploration of the chest there was massive hemorrhage into the thoracic cavity. There was laceration of inner side of the upper part left lung. The ascending aorta was punctured through and upper and mid part of the left long was lacerated. The third rib in the region of wound on front and scapular plate was fractured. The left wad of the projectile was found flouting in the thoracic cavity and was handed over to the police which was seized and sealed by the police.� 7. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death of the deceased was hemorrhage and shock consequent to the injury to lungs and aorta as a result of gunshot. It is also in the evidence of the doctor that shirt of the deceased bore a charred hole on the upper part right side front corresponding to the wound underneath. According to him charring of the shirt and the wound of the deceased was on account of the flame and heat generated by the gunfire. From the evidence of the doctor it is clear that the deceased has died an unnatural death caused by gun shot fired from a close range. 8. The case of the prosecution is that it is the accused who had fired the shot causing the aforesaid injury and consequent death of the deceased from his own gun. From the evidence of the doctor it is clear that the deceased has died an unnatural death caused by gun shot fired from a close range. 8. The case of the prosecution is that it is the accused who had fired the shot causing the aforesaid injury and consequent death of the deceased from his own gun. The star witness of the occurrence is PW Anita Devi. She in her statement has deposed that on the eve of occurrence the accused was found abusing them from the roof of his house. When the deceased objected and asked him to desist from abusing the accused became furious and threatened to kill him. In order to prevent the incident taking ugly turn the family members of the deceased persuaded the deceased to go away for a while whereafter the accused calmed down and went in side his house. The witness has further deposed that on the next morning at about 5.30 AM she proceeded to wake up her mother as she was to milk the cow, as soon as she climbed the roof she found the accused about to shoot at the deceased with a gun he was holding. She raised an alarm due to which her mother and sister got up but in the meantime the accused pulled the trigger and shot at the deceased while he was fast asleep. Thereafter the accused started running. He was over-powered by PWs Mela Ram and Sarwan Kumar. After the arrival of PW Thoru Ram from village Allah, she accompanied by him and PW Fateh Singh went to Police Station Ramgarh and lodged the FIR EXPWAD. She has also stated that after an hour police reached the spot and arrested the accused, who had been tied with a cot. She was shown the gun, the weapon of offence, by the prosecution and after seeing it she deposed that it was the same gun with which her father had been fired upon. On being cross-examined she stated that she had only to climb one step of the stair to reach the rooftop when she saw the accused standing on the right side of the cot with a gun pointed at her father. According to her there were three cots on the roof, one of her mother, one of her sister and one of her father. According to her there were three cots on the roof, one of her mother, one of her sister and one of her father. Before the shot was fired by the accused, her mother and sister had also cried but the accused had fired the shot and after firing the shot he had run away. She has also stated that after the gunshot she ran towards her father but he had breathed his last. Her mother and sister also had left their cots and reached near the deceased. Her clothes as well as clothes of her mother and sister, Babita, had become bloodstained and in bloodstained clothes she had gone to the police station for lodging the report by a matador. She has admitted that she and the police had reached back at about 9.30 AM. but the police did not record her as well as her mother™s statement on that day and after doing some investigation the police had returned and on the next day at 7/8 AM her statement as well as statements of her mother and sister were recorded. She admitted that she had stated to the police that PWs Mela Ram, and Sarwan Kumar had ran after the accused and tied him with the cot but she does not know as to why same has not been recorded by the police. 9. PW Kanta Devi, the mother of PW Anita Devi, in her statement has stated that within fraction of a second after she suddenly woke up on hearing the cries of her daughter the accused shot the deceased and ran away towards his house. He was overpowered by PWs Mela Ram and Sarwan Kumar who were sleeping on the roofs of their houses. She was also subjected to lengthy cross-examination and in the cross-examination she denied the suggestion of the defence that the deceased had also got up on hearing the shrieks be fore he was shot by the accused. PW Babita Devi, another daughter of the deceased, has also made a statement in the identical terms. She was also subjected to cross-examination. 10. Despite cross-examination of the said eyewitnesses by the defence nothing has been brought out by which credibility of the witnesses could be impeached. Learned Trial Court found the aforesaid evidence of the eye witnesses trustworthy and reliable. 11. She was also subjected to cross-examination. 10. Despite cross-examination of the said eyewitnesses by the defence nothing has been brought out by which credibility of the witnesses could be impeached. Learned Trial Court found the aforesaid evidence of the eye witnesses trustworthy and reliable. 11. The contention of Mr.Saini, learned counsel for the appellant, is that all the three witnesses are closely related to the deceased and therefore are interested witnesses. They had a dispute over irrigational rights with the accused, as such they had a motive to falsely implicate the accused. Their evidence being not supported by any independent witness cannot be relied upon to hold that it was the accused who had committed the murder of the deceased by firing a gunshot. Similar contention was raised by the appellant before the Trial Court but the same was rejected and rightly so. Simply because the witnesses happen to be close relations of the deceased cannot be a ground to reject their testimony. The law is well settled that evidence of relation witnesses cannot be rejected mechanically on the ground that they are interested witnesses. In AIR 1991 SC 318, Brathi vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held:- There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are closely related to the deceased, it has to be very careful in evaluating such evidence but the mechanical rejection of the evidence on the sole ground that it is interested would in variably lead to failure of justice.� 12. The relatives living in the same house where the occurrence took place are the natural witnesses. Their evidence is not to be treated as evidence of interested witnesses as they are always interested in getting the real culprit punished. In AIR 1980 SC 184, State of U.P. vs. Hakim Singh, it has been held as follows: We have gone through the evidence of PWs 1&5 particularly in great detail and we find that their evidence is not only credit-worthy but is natural very straight-forward and contain a ring of truth. One of the general grounds on which evidence of these witnesses was rejected by the High Court was that these witnesses were partisan or interested witnesses. One of the general grounds on which evidence of these witnesses was rejected by the High Court was that these witnesses were partisan or interested witnesses. Being near relation and living particularly in the same house, these witnesses cannot be said to be interested witnesses, but are very natural witnesses as held by this Court in the case Mst.Dalbir kour vs State of Punjab (1976 ,4 SCC 158). Moreover, as the murder took place nearabout midnight in side the house we could not have expected witnesses from out side to see the occurrence. On a perusal of PWs 1&5 we are fully satisfied that these witnesses are stating the truth and have not concealed anything.� In AIR 1981 SC 1390 the Supreme Court held:- Related is not equivalent to interested. A witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit out of the litigation, in the decree in a civil case or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of the case cannot be said to be interested.� 13. In the present case the occurrence took place in the wee hours of 13.8.1992. At that time like the deceased and the witnesses all the people living in the vicinity of occurrence ordinarily were supposed to be sleeping. The reason of PW Anita Devi™s going on the rooftop for waking up her mother is not unnatural. The presence of PWs Anita,Kanta Devi and Babita in the house is also natural. Their version cannot be doubted simply because they happen to be close relation of the deceased. It is not the case of the defence that at the time of occurrence some independent witnesses were available who had seen the occurrence but have not been examined. In the circumstances of the case no independent witness in the normal course is expected to be present on spot. Therefore, it cannot be allowed to be urged that as no independent witness has been examined the evidence of relation witnesses is not credible. We have gone through the statements of all the three witnesses. In our considered opinion all the three eye witnesses have given a consistent account of the occurrence and deserve full credence and reliance. 14. Therefore, it cannot be allowed to be urged that as no independent witness has been examined the evidence of relation witnesses is not credible. We have gone through the statements of all the three witnesses. In our considered opinion all the three eye witnesses have given a consistent account of the occurrence and deserve full credence and reliance. 14. Corroboration to their testimonies is found from the medical evidence which too indicates the fact that shot was fired from close range at the deceased. Further and strong corroboration is provided by the first information report. The occurrence took place around 5.30/6 AM. The FIR was registered at 9.00 AM at the police station which is at a distance of about 9 KMs. from the scene of occurrence. The FIR contains almost full account of the occurrence with name of the accused and the eye witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that FIR has been anti-dated as according to him if it had been registered on the same time and date it purports to have been registered, its copy must have been received by the Magistrate on the same day but as per record it was received by the Magistrate on 14.8.1992 at 10.30 AM. The delay makes the FIR suspect. 15. We do not agree with the submission. The delay if any has cogently been explained. As per the evidence of PW Ghulam Qadir Malik copy of the FIR was dispatched vide DDR entry No.7 on 13.8.1992 at 10 AM but could not be delivered on that date to the Judicial Magistrate Samba as he was on leave and therefore was delivered on 14.8.1992 at 10.30 AM. 16. It is next contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is delay in recording the statements of the aforesaid eye witnesses and as there was a chance of deliberations and cooking up a story their evidence should not be relied upon. In support of his contention he has relied upon AIR 1979 SC 135. 17. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that statements of the eye witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were not recorded on the day of occurrence but were recorded on the morning of next day. In support of his contention he has relied upon AIR 1979 SC 135. 17. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that statements of the eye witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were not recorded on the day of occurrence but were recorded on the morning of next day. Why these were not recorded on the same day is explained by the Investigating Officer as that when he reached on spot near the dead body of the deceased they were crying and wailing. It is human approach of the Investigating Officer. The witnesses being widow and young unmarried daughters of the deceased whose dead body was lying before them could not be in a position to make their statements to the police. The evidence of the said eye witnesses does not merit rejection merely because Investigating Officer had shown a human heart. Delay alone in recording the statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. of a witness per se does not and cannot render truthful testimony tainted. In the present case the first information report was lodged promptly, which is in tune on all material particulars with the testimonies of the eye witnesses and corroborates them fully and guarantees the truthfulness of the witnesses. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant no way helps him. In the case AIR 1979 SC 135 titled G.B.Patel vs State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held:- Delay of a few hours, simpliciter, in recording the statements of eye witnesses may not, by itself, amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. But it may assume such a character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye witnesses to be introduced. Thus under the facts and circumstances of the case delay in recording the statements of the material witnesses, casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story.� 18. In the present case there are no such circumstances brought out by the defence on record to suggest that the Investigating Officer was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case. The case of the prosecution stood already unfolded in the FIR. 19. In the present case there are no such circumstances brought out by the defence on record to suggest that the Investigating Officer was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case. The case of the prosecution stood already unfolded in the FIR. 19. We find from the evidence of eye witnesses that they have stood the test of cross-examination. Nothing has been brought out by the defence by which their credibility can in any manner be impeached. They have rendered consistent account of the occurrence. There is sharp ring of truthfulness in their account. By the evidence of eye witnesses we have no manner of doubt that it was the accused alone who fired the fatal shot at the deceased. The gun seized from the spot admittedly belongs to the accused. PW Anita Devi has identified the gun as the gun used by the accused for firing the shot. Her version on this aspect has not been challenged by the defence. Forensic expert PW Rajinder Singh Jamwal has testified that gun had been fired through. PW Mela Ram who lives in the house which adjoins the houses of accused and deceased has testified that on the day of occurrence he woke up on hearing the sound of fire and saw the deceased bleeding and the accused was running from the scene; on reaching the roof of his house tried to reload the gun but could not do the same so he ran inside the house where the witness and PW Sarwan disarmed him and tied him with rope with a cot. The police came at 9/10 AM and arrested the accused and seized the gun from there and sealed it. During the investigation the gun with intact seals was sent for forensic examination. These circumstances also unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. 20. The contention of Mr.Saini learned counsel for the appellant is that since the gun in question was not shown to the doctor for his opinion therefore the failure to do so demolishes the case. In support he relies on Dinesh vs State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 2374 in which it was held:- In a murder trial though it was alleged that eye-witness was assaulted with chain by the accused however, he did not sustain any visible injury. In support he relies on Dinesh vs State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 2374 in which it was held:- In a murder trial though it was alleged that eye-witness was assaulted with chain by the accused however, he did not sustain any visible injury. Though it was alleged that 10 to 20 persons gathered at the spot of occurrence, nobody tried to intervene or apprehended the accused when they escaped. Eye witnesses did not specify as to which of the accused™s blow with his weapon landed on which part of body of deceased. Though the prosecution case was that all the three accused assaulted the deceased with sharp edged weapons, however, there were only two injuries caused by sharp edged weapon found on body of deceased. Though the weapons of offence were seized they were not shown to the doctor for soliciting his opinion as to whether the injuries on deceased™s body could be caused by those weapons. No site plan was available on record from which the court could have had an idea of distances between the place of occurrence, the place where witnesses were standing etc. Held that there was a reasonable doubt about accused having participated in the incident and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution, the benefit whereof must go to them. Consequently conviction of accused was liable to be set aside.� 21. The observations quoted above do not lay down the principle that in all cases where the weapon of offence is not shown to the doctor the evidence of the eye witnesses becomes unacceptable. It was only one of the infirmities taken together with other factors in that case, which was found to affect the credibility of the witnesses. Simply non-showing of the weapon of offence to the doctor for obtaining his opinion as to whether injury in question could be caused with that weapon, as a rule,cannot be taken as to affect the evidence of a truthful witness. In the present case it is manifest from the medical evidence that the injury was result of the gunshot and therefore not showing of the gun to the doctor for his opinion is in our view inconsequential. 22. For what has been said we find no merit in the appeal. The same is therefore dismissed. We affirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant and accept the Criminal Reference. 22. For what has been said we find no merit in the appeal. The same is therefore dismissed. We affirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant and accept the Criminal Reference. The bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled. He shall surrender forthwith before the learned Trial Court who shall send him to jail for serving his sentence. The record of the case, with copy of this judgment be returned to the Trial Court immediately.