Honble GOYAL, J.–In the double murder case, accused appellants, five in number, were placed on trial before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bharatpur. The Trial Court vide its judgment dated 18.10.2001, in sessions case No. 120/2001 convicted and sentenced each of the accused appellants as under :– (1) Hambir (2) Mahendra (3) Govinda (4) Jeet Singh (5) Balram @ Balla : Under Section 302/149 IPC :–Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, one months rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 435 IPC :–Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine, fifteen days rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 147 IPC :–One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, ten days rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2). A written report (Ex.P11) was submitted by Nahar Singh (PW6) (father of the deceased Rajvir) at Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur on 14.3.1999 at 9:45 am with the averments that on 13.3.1999 at about 9:30 pm his son went to Brahmbad by Jeep. Thereafter at about 11:00 pm he came to know that Hambir Singh, Govind Singh, Jeet Singh, Mahendra Singh, Balla Singh, Polu Singh with his brother Mahendra Singh along with some other persons armed with Lathies and Pharsas followed his son. On account of fear he (Nahar Singh) remained in his house. On 14.3.1999 at 6 a.m. he came to know that the dead bodies of his son Rajvir Singh and one girl are lying in burnt condition in his Jeep in between Brahmbad and his village. (3). On the basis of this information, F.I.R. No. 147/1999 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148 & 302 IPC and the investigation commenced. Police seized dead bodies of Veervati and Rajveer in a burnt condition from the place of occurrence and inquest reports respectively Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 were prepared. Site plan with its description (Ex.P3) was also prepared. Jeep which was in burnt condition was seized vide Ex.P4. Autopsy on the dead bodies of Veervati and Rajveer were conducted by Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta (PW21) who prepared postmortem reports Ex.P25 & Ex.P26 respectively. Accused persons were arrested and on their information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, weapons used in the offence and other articles were recovered. Autopsy on the dead bodies of Veervati and Rajveer were conducted by Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta (PW21) who prepared postmortem reports Ex.P25 & Ex.P26 respectively. Accused persons were arrested and on their information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, weapons used in the offence and other articles were recovered. Surendra (PW2) who was in the company of two deceased persons at the time of occurrence was also medically examined by Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta (PW21). Other articles were also seized during investigation. After usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana. Charges under Sections 147, 435 & 302 IPC and in alternate under Section 302 read with Section 147 IPC were framed against the accused appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. Lateron, this sessions case was transferred for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bharatpur. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 26 witnesses. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. The appellants claimed to be innocent. (4). In defence, nine witnesses were examined. After hearing final submissions, learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated here-in-before. (5). We have heard the submissions and carefully gone through the evidence adduced at the trial. (6). So far as the cause of death of deceased Veervati and Rajveer is concerned, it is not disputed that their death was not natural one but was homicidal. Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta (PW21), who was a member of the medical board, along with two other doctors, Ram Kumar Gupta and Madhu Mittal conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of deceased Veervati and Rajveer on 14.3.1999 at the spot. According to the postmortem report of Veervati (Ex.P25) and the statement of Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta, it was found that her chest and abdomen were burst, intestines coming out from abdomen, eyes burnt, both upper and lower limbs were also found burnt, external organs of generation, skull bones, hair of scalp were also burnt completely, peritoneum was congested and burnt, fracture of the left parietal bone was also found. In the opinion of the medical board, Veervati died due to antemortem injuries to brain and extensive burn leading to shock and death. In the opinion of the medical board, Veervati died due to antemortem injuries to brain and extensive burn leading to shock and death. On conducting the autopsy on the dead body of Rajveer, postmortem report Ex.P26 was prepared by the medical board. According to the postmortem report and the statement of the Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta (PW21) it was found that upper and lower limbs burnt completely, fracture of right parietal and temporal, various parts of the body were also found burnt, chest and abdomen burst, intestine coming out from the body (abdomen) liver charred coming out from burst wound. As per the opinion of the medical board, Rajveer died due to antemortem injuries to brain and extensive burns leading to shock and death. (7). The prosecution in its endeavour to secure conviction against the appellants relied on the testimony of Surendra (PW2), Noori @ Damo (PW1), Hukam Singh (PW11) and Shyam Singh (PW12) who were examined to provide ocular version of the events. (8). Firstly, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the testimony of Surendra (PW2), Noori @ Damo (PW1), Hukam Singh (PW11) and Shyam Singh (PW12) examined as eye- witnesses by the prosecution is untrustworthy; that Noori @ Damo (PW1), Hukam Singh (PW11) and Shyam Singh (PW12) are the chance witnesses who were interrogated after a lapse of about more than 20 days despite of the fact that one of them was always present in the village and participated in the inquest report of the deceased persons but did not utter anything to the police as well as to other relatives of the deceased persons. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in the case of Surinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 21 wherein eye-witness after seeing the occurrence did not go to inform to parents and relatives of deceased but went to his own house and after sometime informed some other persons. Under the facts and circumstances of that case, conduct of eye-witness was held to be suspicious. In another judgment Din Dayal vs. Raj Kumar alias Raju and Others, reported in A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 537 the eye-witnesses closely connected with the deceased did not accompany deceased to hospital nor had informed police about incidence. In these circumstances, their conduct was found unnatural. In another judgment Din Dayal vs. Raj Kumar alias Raju and Others, reported in A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 537 the eye-witnesses closely connected with the deceased did not accompany deceased to hospital nor had informed police about incidence. In these circumstances, their conduct was found unnatural. It was further held that eye-witness who was the close relative of deceased and who had accompanied deceased to hospital also did not disclosing name of accused to police, creates serious doubt regarding truthfulness of evidence of such eye- witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that statements of these eye-witnesses were recorded after an inordinate delay, thus, their testimony cannot be relied upon. Reliance has been placed on Balakrushna Swain vs. The State of Orissa, reported in A.I.R. 1971 Supreme Court 804 wherein it was held that unjustified and unexplained long delay on part of investigating officer in recording statement of material eye- witness during investigation of murder case will render evidence of such witness unreliable. In the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 135, it was held that 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. In these circumstances, 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. (9). Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and submitted that surendra (PW2) was the eye-witness of stoneworth who went along with Rajveer and Veervati at Bayana by jeep and when they were returning after midnight to their village Purabai Kheda, about 2 km ahead from Brahmbad the accused appellants firstly sustained the injuries on Rajveer and Veervati and thereafter pushing both of them in the jeep and after pouring the fuel both of them were put to fire which caused the death of both the deceased persons at the spot. It is also submitted that Noori @ Damo (PW1), Hukam Singh (PW11) & Shyam Singh (PW12) are also the ocular witnesses who saw the incident while they were coming from Brahmnad. Their statements further find corroboration from the other witnesses and evidence adduced by the prosecution. (10). It is also submitted that Noori @ Damo (PW1), Hukam Singh (PW11) & Shyam Singh (PW12) are also the ocular witnesses who saw the incident while they were coming from Brahmnad. Their statements further find corroboration from the other witnesses and evidence adduced by the prosecution. (10). We have considered the rival submissions and scanned the entire material available on record. (11). The prosecution case rests on the testimony of Noori @ Damo (PW1), Surendra (PW2), Hukam Singh (PW11) and Shyam Singh (PW12) who claimed to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Then there is another set of witnesses Nawab Singh (PW10), who saw the appellants going towards Brahmnad armed with weapons, Nahar Singh (PW6), father of the deceased Rajveer who lodged the F.I.R., Rampati (PW7) mother of the witness Surendra (PW2) and other witnesses of recovery and police witnesses who were related with the investigation. (12). So far the witnesses Noori @ Damo (PW1), Hukam Singh (PW11) and Shyam Singh (PW12) are concerned, admittedly they are the chance witnesses. They stated that they went to see `Seth Ka Mela at Brahmnad at 2-2:30 pm and remained till 11 pm and when they were returning from Brahmnad to village Purabai Kheda they saw the occurrence on the way. It is also not disputed that Noori @ Damo (PW1) is the cousin of Rajveer and resided adjacent to his house. It is also admitted case of the prosecution that Noori @ Damo (PW1) participated in the funeral of deceased Rajveer and also a witness of inquest reports Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 and remained throughout in village Purabai Kheda but he did not disclose to police and other persons including the father of deceased Rajveer and other relatives that he along with his two friends Hukam Singh (PW11) and Shyam Singh (PW12) witnessed the occurrence. It is also significant to note that statements of all these three witnesses were recorded on 30.3.1999 i.e., about 16 days after the occurrence and in this regard investigating officer Harveer Singh (PW22) stated that there was no eye-witness known till 27.3.1999 except Surendra (PW2). It has also come in the evidence of Hukam Singh (PW11) and Shyam Singh (PW12) that in the night after witnessing this occurrence they came in the village Purabai Kheda but they did not utter a single word about this incident to anybody in the village. It has also come in the evidence of Hukam Singh (PW11) and Shyam Singh (PW12) that in the night after witnessing this occurrence they came in the village Purabai Kheda but they did not utter a single word about this incident to anybody in the village. Specially under the circumstances where there is no allegation that accused or any relative of accused persons ever threatened these witnesses, non-disclosing the fact that they saw the incident and other details of the incident for a long time creates doubt of their being the eye-witnesses. (13). It is next submitted that Surendra (PW2) is an interested witness who was conductor on the jeep of deceased Rajveer, his conduct was unnatural as he did not inform about the incident to the father of deceased Rajveer and ran away from the village, his statement was also recorded by the police after a period of ten days, his name has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. as eye- witness of this incident. These facts also cause a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of his statement. It is also submitted that threatening to Surendra (PW2) by the accused Hambir Singh is also a false narration and only incorporated with a view to explain the inordinate delay. It is also contended that according to Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta (PW21) who examined Surendra (PW2) found the injuries about seven days old. Thus, it is clear that Surendra (PW2) sustained injuries on or about 19.3.1999 and not on 13-14.3.1999 which is the date of this incident. It is also argued that there were major contradictions in his court statement from his police statement and statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that where the statement of a witness has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on the pretext that in future the accused persons may pressurize the witness then in such circumstances the statement of such witness must be considered after great care and caution. It is also contended that there is no evidence that accused persons were having any knowledge that Rajveer will return from the way of near place of incident and will stop the jeep, thus, it is clear that on the basis of suspicion accused appellants were falsely implicated in this crime. It is also contended that there is no evidence that accused persons were having any knowledge that Rajveer will return from the way of near place of incident and will stop the jeep, thus, it is clear that on the basis of suspicion accused appellants were falsely implicated in this crime. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that another witness Rampati (PW7) who is mother of surendra (PW2) is also not reliable witness. It is also contended that there is no independent corroboration to the statement of surendra (PW2). In these circumstances, on the basis of week and doubtful solitary testimony of surendra (PW2), the conviction of accused appellants is not safe. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Chhita and Another vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 639 wherein it was held that subsequent conduct of the sole eye- witness and various statements made by him during investigation and trial rendering the entire prosecution story suspect. In the case of Chanan Singh vs. The State of Haryana, reported in A.I.R. 1971 Supreme Court 1554 where the sole witness ran away rom the place of occurrence even though he was not chased or threatened by any one of the assailants and also did not report to the relatives of either of the two deceased persons, it was held that conduct of the witness was not normal. In the case of Badri vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 560, it was held that if a witness, who is only witness against the accused to prove serious charge of murder, can modulate his evidence to suit a particular prosecution theory for the deliberate purpose of securing conviction, such a witness cannot be considered as a reliable person and no conviction can be based on his sole testimony. (14). It is further contended that Surendra (PW2) was the real culprit who along with co-accused Rajveer first committed rape on Veervati, during this, Veervati died and thereafter on account of some quarrel Surendra (PW2) killed Rajveer and set them ablazed in the jeep. (15). For appreciating the submissions, it would be appropriate to see the testimony of Surendra (PW2) who is a star witness of the prosecution. (15). For appreciating the submissions, it would be appropriate to see the testimony of Surendra (PW2) who is a star witness of the prosecution. He stated in his deposition that he was sleeping in his house where at about 9:30 or 10o clock in the night Rajveer came and awakened him and told that they have to go to Bayana since his (Rajveers) wife is sick. Thereupon, he went along with Rajveer to Bayana in the jeep where Rajveer and his wife both went in the hospital and when lady came back he recognized that the girl was not the wife of Rajveer but was daughter of Hambir, thereafter he along with Rajveer and Veervati returned for their village. He further stated that 2 km. ahead from Brahmnad towards Purabai Kheda, Rajveer suddenly stopped the jeep and got down and when he again tried to occupy the driving seat, accused appellants Hambir, Jeet Singh, Govind Singh, Mahendra Singh, Balla, Kolu @ Ramsahay and one Vinod Kumar came; they started beating to Rajveer; they all were armed with `Pharsa and sticks; when he (Surendra-PW2) got down from the jeep Govinda inflicted lathi blow on his head and some more injuries were also caused; they also inflicted lathi blow on Veervati. He further stated that to save his life he hide himself behind the bushes (jokaria); accused persons were continuously beating Rajveer and Veervati; thereafter on the instructions of Hambir, deceased Veervati and Rajveer were pushed in the vehicle and set them ablazed. He further stated that Rajveer and Veervati were crying and sometime thereafter they were silent; he hide himself throughout the night near the place of occurrence and in the morning he reached at his village and informed about the incident to his father; that after 5 minutes Hambir came at his residence and threatened him and thereafter he ran away from the village. He further deposed that he was medically examined 10-15 days after the incident. In cross-examination, he clarified that he could not identify the lady Veervati because she was covered with the quilt. (16). He further deposed that he was medically examined 10-15 days after the incident. In cross-examination, he clarified that he could not identify the lady Veervati because she was covered with the quilt. (16). From the evidence of Surendra (PW2), it is admitted position that he was working as a conductor on the jeep of deceased Rajveer but merely for this reason that he was an employee of deceased Rajveer, his evidence cannot be discarded nor he can be levelled as interested witness, contrary to this Surendra (PW2) appears to be natural witness who went along with his master at Bayana and while returning this incident took place on the way. (17). So far criticism levelled against him in regard to his conduct after the incident is concerned, suffice is to say that human conduct and behaviour vary from man to man. Honble the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Devendra Singh, reported in 2004 (10) Supreme Court Cases 616 considered the aspect of human behaviour and conduct of the witness in depth and observed in para 6 that ``human behaviour varies from person to person. Different people behave and react differently in different situations. Human behaviour depends upon the facts and circumstances of each given case. How a person would react and behave in a particular situation can never be predicted. Every person who witnesses a serious crime reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counterattacking the assailants. Some may remain tightlipped, overawed either on account of the antecedents of the assailant or threats given by him. Each one reacts in his special way even in similar circumstances, leave alone, the varying nature depending upon a variety of circumstances. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. (18). There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. (18). In the instant case, according to Surendra (PW2) accused persons attacked with deadly weapons `Pharsa and sticks and appellant Govinda inflicted lathi blow on his head and other parts of his body, thus just to save himself he ran away and hide himself behind bushes (jokaria) and out of fear he remained there till morning and in the morning at 5 o clock when he reached at his residence he narrated the story to his father, soon after five minutes appellant Hambir came and threatened him of dire consequences and in this situation when he himself was beaten by one of the accused and on account of threatening received by him from the accused Hambir, he ran away and returned after ten days in his village, his conduct cannot be said to be abnormal and suspicious nor in these circumstances on account of delay in recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. his testimony can be seen with suspicion. (19). Honble the Apex Court in the case of Ranbir & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, reported in A.I.R. 1973 Supreme Court 140 held that question of delay in examining the witness is material only if it is indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the investigating agency for the purpose of introducing got up witness to falsely support the prosecution case. In the case of Sunil Kumar and Another vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2005 (9) Supreme Court Cases 283 it was held that where witnesses themselves have indicated as to why there was delay, then plea regarding delay in recording the statement had no substance. (20). So far effect of the statement of Surendra (PW2) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is concerned, in our view his testimony cannot be thrown out on this ground. (20). So far effect of the statement of Surendra (PW2) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is concerned, in our view his testimony cannot be thrown out on this ground. Honble the Apex Court has considered this aspect in the case of State of M.P. vs. Mansingh and Others, reported in 2003 (10) Supreme Court Cases 414 wherein it was categorically held that evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded merely because their statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., all that is required as a matter of caution is a careful analysis of the evidence. It was further held that injured witnesses has great evidentiary value and should not be discarded lightly unless compelling reasons exist. (21). Here it is significant to note that Surendra (PW2) also sustained injuries in this incident. Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta examined him on 26.3.1999 and prepared injury report Ex.P3. According to injury report Ex.P3, there was swelling, tenderness on the lower 1/4th of left fore arm and this injury was found grievous in nature, another injury was healed wound over occipital region which was of simple nature by blunt object. Doctor opined that these injuries were more than seven days old. (22). A criticism has been levelled that since injuries found on the body of Surendra (PW2) were seven days old, thus, they cannot be related with the incident which took place on 13-14.3.1999. (23). We are unable to agree with this submission. As per the injury report Ex.P3 injuries were more than seven days old, thus, it cannot be inferred that injuries were only seven days old. It is pertinent to mention here that Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta (PW21) in his cross-examination, cleared this position and stated that injuries found on the body of Surendra (PW2) can be maximum 15 days old. Thus, in our view injuries found on the body of Surendra (PW2) were sustained in this incident which also lends assurance to the credibility of the statement of Surendra (PW2). (24). We also find no substance in this contention that since name of Surendra has not been mentioned in the FIR, his presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful. In this regard, on scrutinizing the evidence and material we find that it is the case of the prosecution that deceased Rajveer went at the residence of Surendra (PW2) and thereafter they left for Bayana in the jeep. In this regard, on scrutinizing the evidence and material we find that it is the case of the prosecution that deceased Rajveer went at the residence of Surendra (PW2) and thereafter they left for Bayana in the jeep. Nahar Singh (PW6), father of the deceased, stated that Surendra (PW2) alone went towards Brahmnad from his house and further deposed that he could know lateron that Surendra (PW2) also went with his son in the jeep. Thus, there was no question of mentioning the name of Surendra (PW2) in the FIR since Nahar Singh was not aware at the time of lodging F.I.R. that Surendra (PW2) also went to Bayana with his son. Further in the case of Shri Bhagwan vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 296 it was held that merely the name of eye-witness not mentioned in F.I.R. is not ground to discard his testimony. (25). Thus, in our considered view Surendra (PW2) was a natural witness who also sustained injuries in the same incident and out of fear he had to leave the village in the same morning. His testimony remained consistent on material points and stands corroborated by medical evidence as well as by the statement of his mother Rampati (PW7) who stated that in the night Rajveer came to their home and thereafter his son Surendra (PW2) went with Rajveer and in the morning at about 7 am he in injured condition returned and narrated the incident, that near Brahmnad- Purabai Kheda seven persons Vinod, Ramsahay, Hambir, Govind, Jeeta, Mahendra and Balla surrounded them and gave beating to him as well as to Rajveer and Veervati. He further narrated that Veervati and Rajveer were pushed by the accused persons in the jeep and they were put to fire. Rampati (PW7) further deposed that after some time Hambir who is father of Veervati came at the residence and threatened his son Surendra and on account of fear his son left the house. (26). He further narrated that Veervati and Rajveer were pushed by the accused persons in the jeep and they were put to fire. Rampati (PW7) further deposed that after some time Hambir who is father of Veervati came at the residence and threatened his son Surendra and on account of fear his son left the house. (26). The testimony of Surendra (PW2) further finds corroboration from the statement of Nawab Singh (PW10) who deposed that on 13.3.1999 he came from Agra to Brahmnad and from the railway station he was going to his village Purabai Kheda; when he reached half of the way he saw Hambir, Govinda, Jeet Singh, Vinod, Kumar Mahendra, Vinod Kumar S/o Mahendra and his father and Balla going towards Brahmnad armed with lathis and `Pharsa and on his inquiry they told that they are going to Brahmnad. He further stated that on the next day he came to know that son of Nahar Singh and daughter of Hambir were killed by setting them ablazed at a place 2 km. ahead from Brahmnad. (27). Another piece of evidence collected by the investigating agency is the blood stained shirt which was recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P51 on the information by accused Hambir under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.P8, on which human blood was detected as per the FSL report Ex.P23. It is also significant to note that defence tried to set up a case that Surendra (PW2) along with Rajveer committed rape on Veervati and during this criminal act Veervati died and thereafter due to quarrel in between Surendra and Rajveer firstly Surendra inflicted injuries on the body of Rajveer and thereafter set them ablazed after pouring the fuel on the jeep. But in our view this defence seems to be afterthought since Hambir father of Veervati never lodged FIR alleging this sort of incident. Rather accused appellant Hambir lodged the FIR No. 148/1999 on 14.3.1999 in the same police station after registration of this case i.e. 147/1999 wherein he only alleged that Rajveer abducted his daughter Veervati. Surprisingly not reporting about the suspicious murder of his daughter Veervati gives strength to prosecution case and further corroborates the other ocular and circumstantial evidence. Rather accused appellant Hambir lodged the FIR No. 148/1999 on 14.3.1999 in the same police station after registration of this case i.e. 147/1999 wherein he only alleged that Rajveer abducted his daughter Veervati. Surprisingly not reporting about the suspicious murder of his daughter Veervati gives strength to prosecution case and further corroborates the other ocular and circumstantial evidence. Honble the Apex Court in the case of Usman Miyan and Others vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2004 (10) Supreme Court Cases 786, held that false defence plea provides an additional link to the chain of incriminating circumstances. (28). Another salient feature which has emerged from the evidence is that Rajveer was a married person who took away his niece Veervati in the night at Bayana by his jeep without the knowledge and consent of father and other relatives of Veervati. It has come in the evidence that on knowing this, Hambir, father of Veervati, and other co-accused, who are the close relatives of Hambir, became furious and chased both the deceased persons and incident took place 2 km. ahead from Brahmnad towards their village Purabai Kheda. In this situation, there appears to be a clear motive of murdering Rajveer and Veervati by accused persons which also lands assurance to the prosecution case. (29). For these reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of learned trial Judge and the instant appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.