Judgment : ARUN KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, J. (1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Case No. 81 of 1989 (S.T. No. 16 of 95) on 20.04.2000. (2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that compromise in presence of villagers and Pradhan in respect of the dispute over land at Muchir Khal which took place in the last year between the de facto complainants elder brother Lula Rajowar on the one hand and Sakari Rajowar and his three sons viz. Aghani Rajowar, Chaita Rajowar and Thula Rajowar on the other, was scheduled to be held at about 10.00 a.m. on 26.08.1986, but no settlement could be made. On the same date at about 5.30 a.m. when the said Lula was knitting a net on the road near Hari Temple at the three point junction of the locality, de facto complainant (P.W.I) was standing and Baneswar Rajowar (P.W. 2), Kesto Gope (P.W.3), Gopal Gope (P.W. 7), Sakari Rajowar and his three sons viz. Aghani, Chaita and Thula were sitting by the side of Lula, Lula raised the issue of compromise which was objected by Sakari and his three sons followed by an altercation. Sakari and his three sons rushed to their house returned with a tabla in their hands. Aghani assaulted Lula with a tabla on his right shoulder and hands. When Chaita was tussling with the complainant, Thula assaulted Lula on his hand and held the complainant. Chaita assaulted the complainant on his back. Baneswar Rajowar held Aghani who leaving his tabla fled away. On hearing the hue and cry the villagers came and the matter was reported to them. Injured Lula was removed in a rickshaw to Chaklatore Hospital where he was declared dead. The matter was reported to Chowkidar Prahlad Bouri. Hence, while the case against accused Sakari Rajowar was abated on 19.11.1993, other three accused persons were charged under section 302/34 IPC and in addition accused Chaita @ Chhutu was charged under section 323 IPC. (3.) The defence case, as suggested to P.Ws., as contended by the accused persons during their examination under section 313 Cr.PC and as deposed by D.W., is that no such incident took place. The accused persons were not in the village at the time of incident nor they were involved with the alleged offence. (3.) The defence case, as suggested to P.Ws., as contended by the accused persons during their examination under section 313 Cr.PC and as deposed by D.W., is that no such incident took place. The accused persons were not in the village at the time of incident nor they were involved with the alleged offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case out of enmity over the issue of land. (4.) Fourteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution while one witness was examined on behalf of the defence, and after considering the facts, circumstances and materials-on-record, the ld. Court below found three accused persons guilty under section 302/34 IPC and accused Chaita @ Chhutu guilty under section 323 IPC, convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- i.d. to R I for two years each and R I for one year respectively. (5.) Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused have preferred the present appeal. (6.) All that now requires to be considered is whether the ld. Court below was justified in passing the above order of conviction and sentence. (7.) The vital witnesses in this case are P.Ws. 1 to 3, 5, 7, 9, 12 and 14, others being formal or post occurrence witnesses. (8.) According to the evidence of P.W. 1, in the month of Bhadra about 12/13 years back there was a talk of settlement of the dispute over the land commonly known as Muchir Khal at about 10.00 a.m. Pradhan deferred the date of compromise and the accused persons did not agree to compromise the matter. At about 5.00 p.m. on that date when his elder brother Lula was knitting a net at Hari Temple, he himself was standing and Baneswar Rajowar (P.W.2), Kesto Gope (P.W. 3), Gopal Gope (P.W. 7) and all the four accused persons were sitting there, accused Aghani, Chaita and Thula ran towards their house, returned being armed with tabla and accused Aghani and Thula attacked Lula with tabla and inflicted tabla blow on his neck. Accused Thula assaulted on his hand. Accused Thula also had a scuffle with him when accused Chaita inflicted tabla blow on him. Baneswar (P.W. 2) took away tabla from accused Aghani and then Aghani fled away followed by fleeing away of other two accused persons. Accused Thula assaulted on his hand. Accused Thula also had a scuffle with him when accused Chaita inflicted tabla blow on him. Baneswar (P.W. 2) took away tabla from accused Aghani and then Aghani fled away followed by fleeing away of other two accused persons. Being attracted by an alarm raised by them, villagers arrived there and he being accompanied by the villagers took his elder brother to Chaklatore PHC where he succumbed to injuries. The villagers informed the matter to the P.S. over phone. Police arrived at first at Chaklatore PHC, saw the deadbody of the victim and then visited the P.O. He made a statement (Ext. 7) before the police at Chaklatore. Police seized the weapon (tabla) as also blood-stained earth and controlled earth. He consulted doctor for his injuries caused by tabla blow by the accused and was in Chaklatore PHC for treatment for 2/3 days. The deadbody of the victim was removed to Sadar Hospital for PM examination. The above evidence in material particulars is corroborated by P.W.2 Baneswar Rajowar, P.W. 3 Kesto Gope, P. W. 5 Nepura Rajowar and P.W.7 Gopal Gope who are also eye-witnesses to the occurrence. As per evidence of P.W.2, on Tuesday about 12/13 years back at about 5/5.30 p.m. he was sitting at Hari Temple for gossiping, where P.W.I, Kesto Gope (P.W.3), Gopal Gope (P.W.7), Lulder brother of P.W.I, Sakari, Aghani, Thula and Chaita were present, and discussion was going on over the land matter. At this Aghani, Thula and Chaita ran away towards their house which is at a short distance, and brought tabla. Aghani inflicted a tabla blow on the neck of Lul a followed by assault by accused Thula on his hand. There was a scuffle between accused and P.W. 1. Accused Thula caught hold P.W.1 and accused Chaita assaulted him. He caught hold accused Aghani when he threw tabla from his hand and all the accused persons fled away. Lula succumbed to injuries on account of tabla blow by the accused persons and he was taken in a rickshaw to Chaklatore PHC. Police arrived at Chaklatore PHC, then visited the P.O. where bloodstained tabla was handed over by them to police. Police seized blood-stained earth and controlled earth under a seizure list in their presence. Similar is the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 5, 7. Police arrived at Chaklatore PHC, then visited the P.O. where bloodstained tabla was handed over by them to police. Police seized blood-stained earth and controlled earth under a seizure list in their presence. Similar is the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 5, 7. P.W. 8 Lusi Rajowar -wife of the victim, on being informed by P.W. 5 about murder of her husband by Aghani, Thula and Chaita, rushed to the P.O. found injury mark on the person of her husband, whose body was taken to hospital. P.W. 6 Prahlad Bouri, P.W.11 Monohar Mahato and P.W. 13 Yakub Ansari were tendered for cross-examination. P.W. 12 K.B. Sinha, the then Superintendent of Purulia Sadar Hospital, on holding PM examination over the deadbody of the victim, being identified by P.W.10 constable Netai Sarkar, on 27.08.86 (wrongly typed as 27.08.96) at about 3.00 p.m. found (1) one sharp-cut injury 4" x 1" x bone deep over the middle portion of right side of neck, carotid sheath with its contents cut, (2) one sharp-cut injury parallel to No.1 and above on the right side of neck extending upto nape of neck posteriorly 5" x 1" x bone deep, vertebra cut, carotid sheath with its contents cut, (3) one sharp-cut semilunar injury over the lateral aspect of left elbow and upper part of left forearm 3" x 4" x bone cut, (4) one of left forearm 3" x 4" x bone cut, (5) one sharp-cut injury 3" x 1" x skin deep over posterior aspect of right shoulder joint and (6) one linear abrasion 7" over right lateral chest and abdominal wall, and opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of abovementioned injuries, ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. It is his further opinion that the injuries on neck may cause instant death and such type of injuries may be caused by sharp-cutting weapon like tabla. P.W. 9 Dr. Swapan Banerjee, the then M.O., Chaklatore PHC, on examination of P.W. 1 on 26.08.86 found one incised wound of about 4" in length on the back, superficial and simple in nature and opined that this type of injury may be caused by any sharp-cutting weapon like tabla. The above evidence of P.Ws.12 and 9 are quite in harmony with the said evidence of eyewitnesses. P.W. 4 Basudeb Mishra is a witness to the seizure (Ext. 1/1) of earth and a tabla by police. The above evidence of P.Ws.12 and 9 are quite in harmony with the said evidence of eyewitnesses. P.W. 4 Basudeb Mishra is a witness to the seizure (Ext. 1/1) of earth and a tabla by police. As I.O. S.I. P.B. Panda on account of serious illness could not be examined, P.W.14 S.I. Jitendranath Mukherjee who worked under him and is acquainted with his handwriting and signature, deposed with reference to the CD that on receipt of a telephonic message S.I. P.B. Panda recorded G.D.E. No. 1028 dated 26.08.86 (Ext. 8) at 20.05 hrs. and left for Chaklatore (at a distance of 15 km.) to work out the information. The statement (Ext.7) of P.W.1 was recorded by him at 9.30 p.m. He held inquest over the deadbody of the victim in presence of P.Ws. 1 and 9, seized the bloodstained tabla, bloodstained earth and controlled earth under a seizure list (Ext. 1/1), prepared a sketch map with index of the P.O. (Ext.6) and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. In one place of his cross- examination he deposed with reference to the CD that S.I. Panda started for Chaklatore at 20.10 hrs., reached Chaklatore PHC at 21.00 hrs. and held inquest from 21.00 hrs. to 21.25 hrs. in presence of the attending doctor P.W. 9 and P.W. 1 which does not appear to be in conformity with the inquest report (Ext. 10) as also the evidence of P.W. 1 since in the inquest report the time of holding inquest as mentioned is 22.30 hrs. and it is the evidence of P.W.1 that the police first arrived at Chaklatore PHC, saw the deadbody of the victim and thereafter visited their village and he made a statement to the police. There is nothing to suggest in the evidence of P.W.1 that after holding inquest over the deadbody of the victim S.I. Panda recorded the FIR nor any question relating to the time of holding inquest by S.I. Panda was put to P.W. 9. (9.) According to the defence case, as suggested to P.Ws. 2 and 8, the accused persons were not in the village on the date of incident. Onus to prove alibi is on the accused as it is a matter within his special knowledge and such plea of alibi when taken by an accused must be proved by him and he substantiate and make it reasonably probable. 2 and 8, the accused persons were not in the village on the date of incident. Onus to prove alibi is on the accused as it is a matter within his special knowledge and such plea of alibi when taken by an accused must be proved by him and he substantiate and make it reasonably probable. He must lead evidence to show that he was so far off at the moment of the crime from the place when the offence was committed and that he could not have committed the offence. Here, no such plea of alibi was taken by the accused persons during their examination under section 313 Cr.PC nor any suggestion in this regard was put either to P.W.1 or to other witnesses. However, D.W.I Barka Rajowar, who is a relation of the accused persons, claimed to have met the accused persons at about 1.30 p.m. at Joynagar bus-stand while they were returning from Purulia to Joynagar to the house of their elder sister at village Hutmura. When he, Aghani and Chaita were taking tea at Joynagar bus-stand, their elder sister came and took him as also the accused persons to her house. After staying there for 1 1/6 hrs. he started for Purulia at a distance of about 6/7 miles. The elder sister of the accused persons informed that when Chaita and Aghani came to her house, there was a murder at village Chaklatore. He used to meet daily the said elder sister who is also a day labourer like him, at Hutmura-Joynagar bus-stand and the said elder sister called him by signal at Hutmura-Joynagar bus-stand and informed about the murder. He cannot say when the accused persons were arrested by police or the movement of the accused persons or the date of his taking tea with the accused persons in the tea stall of Sisir Tamil. The said elder sister who is a vital witness to substantiate the defence story was not examined, and such non-examination of the said witness will lead the Court to draw an adverse inference that had she been examined here, she would not have supported the defence story. That apart, the incident took place in the afternoon in presence of so many witnesses. P.W. 1 himself being an injured witness cannot exculpate the real offenders. That apart, the incident took place in the afternoon in presence of so many witnesses. P.W. 1 himself being an injured witness cannot exculpate the real offenders. Accordingly, we may examine the defence story which sounds oblique an improbable and collapses like a pricked balloon on an insightful judicial probe. The falsity of defence case undoubtedly cannot establish the prosecution case but it may be taken into consideration in deciding if the charge has been brought home against the accused and when other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused it can be considered as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence to make it complete, as a false plea put forward by the accused rebounds on him and the prosecution case gets strengthened. In this connection, reference may be made to the cases of Mohan Lal vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1974 SC 1144 and Shankarlal vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1981 SC 765 . (10.) There are some inconsistencies relating to the time of occurrence, since whereas according to the evidence of P.W. 1, it took place at about 5.00 p.m., which as per evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 7, is 5/5.30 p.m., 4/5.00 p.m., 4.30 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. respectively. The evidence of P.W. 7 is a bit self-contradictory, as while in examination-in-chief he stated that he arrived at the P.O. at about 5.00 p.m., in cross-examination it is his evidence that he went there at about 2.00 p.m. and waited there till 5.00 p.m. and returned to his house at about 7.00 p.m. and excepting nine persons none came. Again, P.W. 8 stated in cross-examination that P.W. 5 informed her about the incident at about 3.00 p.m. It appears from the FIR (Ext.7), which is the earliest version of the prosecution, that the incident took place at about 17.30 hrs. and FIR was recorded by I .O. S.I. P.B. Panda at 21.30 hrs. followed by his forwarding the same to the P. S. for starting a case whereupon Purulia P.S. Case No. 17 dated 26.08.86 under section 302 IPC against four accused persons at about 23.30 hrs. and FIR was recorded by I .O. S.I. P.B. Panda at 21.30 hrs. followed by his forwarding the same to the P. S. for starting a case whereupon Purulia P.S. Case No. 17 dated 26.08.86 under section 302 IPC against four accused persons at about 23.30 hrs. Considering the overall evidence, there cannot be any dispute that the incident took place at about 5.30 p.m. There is nothing to indicate in the testimony of P.W.5 that he reported the matter to the house of the victim at about 3.00 p.m. So, the above evidence of P.W. 8 relating to reporting about the incident by P.W.5 at about 3.00 p.m. is a completely mistaken one which is palpable and as such it may be ignored. That apart, all the above witnesses are illiterate and rustic villagers and as such correct version about time of occurrence by arithmetical calculation cannot be expected of them. They are deposing after a lapse of about 13 years from the time of occurrence. Power of observation, memory and recapitulation differs from man to man, and memory is apt to be blurred in the passage of time. So, some discrepancies in regard to collateral or subsidiary facts is bound to occur. Accordingly, the said discrepancies which are minor cannot undo the effect of evidence otherwise sufficient on record particularly when there is a general agreement and consistency in regard to the substratum of the prosecution story. (11.) Mr. R.K. Ghosal, ld. Counsel for the appellants, contended that as the said witnesses are highly interested, much reliance should not be placed upon their testimony. P.Ws. 1, 5 and 8 are only relations of the victim but not others. Close relationship with the victim is not a ground for disbelieving a witness. Ordinarily a close relation intends not to screen the real offender. Close relationship far from being a foundation for criticism is often and sure guarantee for truth. In this context, the cases of Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1953 SC 364 and Bhupendra Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1438 , may be relied on. (12.) Mr. Ghosal next contended that had P.W. 5 seen the occurrence, her name would have been borne out in the testimony of P.Ws 1 to 3 and 7, and so her testimony should not be believed. (12.) Mr. Ghosal next contended that had P.W. 5 seen the occurrence, her name would have been borne out in the testimony of P.Ws 1 to 3 and 7, and so her testimony should not be believed. It is the evidence of P.W. 5 that while she was returning after collecting wood, she witnessed the occurrence. Merely because none of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 7 told about the presence of P.W. 5, it is no ground for discarding her testimony. Had she not witnessed the incident, such vivid description of the occurrence could not be narrated by her. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that they could not anticipate such attack by the accused persons. So, when P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 7 were busy to face and tackle the situation, they could not be expected to divert their attention to see the persons who are witnessing the occurrence. (13.) Mr.Ghosal adversely criticized for non-examination of Panchayat Pradhan who asked the parties to settle the dispute and Ramdas Mishra who was present, as disclosed in the evidence of P.W.2. Merely because Panchayat Pradhan took initiative to settle the dispute, he does not become an essential witness. It is not as if every witness who has something to do with some part of the prosecution story should pass through the witness box. If they were essential to unfold the prosecution case and were suspiciously suppressed, the question of adverse presumption would have arisen. Duplicating of evidence is not necessary. It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters than quantity in human affairs. (14.) Mr. Ghosal next contended that blood-stained tabla was not sent to the fingerprint expert. It is the evidence of P.W. 2 that when police arrived at the P.O., the bloodstained tabla was handed over to police by them. So, when the said weapon of offence moved in the hands of more than one person, forwarding the same to the fingerprint expert would not have served any purpose. (15.) Mr. Ghosal on referring to the evidence of P.Ws. So, when the said weapon of offence moved in the hands of more than one person, forwarding the same to the fingerprint expert would not have served any purpose. (15.) Mr. Ghosal on referring to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 contended that though it is the evidence of P.W. 1 that he was bare-bodied, P.W. 7 stated that the lungi and ganjee of P.W.1 were blood-stained but the same were not seized by the I.O. The said discrepancy on the evidence of P.W. 7 is due to lapse of 13 years. Nevertheless, it is the evidence of P.W. 1 that he did not make over his blood-stained lungi to the I.O. but only showed the same to him. Therefore, when the lungi was not seized by the I.O. the question of sending the same to FSL is out of the way. (16.) Mr. Ghosal levelled a criticism for non-production of the weapon of offence before the Court at the time of trial. Mr. Asimesh Goswami, ld. Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submitted that since long 13 years have elapsed from the time of occurrence, the weapon of offence could not be readily traced out and such non-production of the weapon of offence is not any ground to discard the prosecution story. When the direct evidence is acceptable and unimpeachable and is considered to be sufficient to establish the charge, it cannot be said that the whole of it would lose all its value for non- production of the said weapon of offence which is merely corroborative, and as such when so many witnesses have deposed to the same tune implicating the present accused persons as offenders, non-production of the said weapon of offence in the aforesaid circumstances does not at all affect the prosecution story. (17.) Men do not act wholly without motive and failure to discover the motive of the offence does not signify the non-existence of the crime nor proof of motive is ever an indispensable factor for conviction, as was held in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in 1996 Cr.LJ 421(SC). Though the prosecution is not to prove the motive for it is known only to the accused, in a case where only circumstantial evidence is available, the Courts normally try to find out motive behind the crime. Though the prosecution is not to prove the motive for it is known only to the accused, in a case where only circumstantial evidence is available, the Courts normally try to find out motive behind the crime. In the case on hand, when there is direct evidence about murder, motive loses all its significance. Here, undoubtedly there was a dispute over the issue of land of Muchir Khal between the victim and the accused persons, as both the parties adversely claimed ownership of the land. So, the enmity between the parties being active, the pique against the victim is understandable. (18.) Before we part with the record, it is worthwhile to observe that as the injury of P.W.1 which is simple in nature was caused on account of assault with tabla, the offence falls within the purview of section 324 and not section 323 IPC. However, since no appeal has been preferred by the State, we refrain from modifying the conviction and sentence in that respect. (19.) In the premises, in the light of the above discussion, there being no material to interfere with the decision of the ld. Court below, the present appeal be dismissed. (20.) The order of conviction and sentence passed by the ld. Court below is hereby confirmed. (21.) Alamats, if any, be destroyed after the period of appeal is over. (22.) Let a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be sent down at once to the ld. Court below. Appeal dismissed.