IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J. The above mentioned criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11-9-1981 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 454 of 1980 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34, 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. During the pendency of appeal, appellant Pooran is reported to be dead and his appeal stands abated by the order dated 25-8-2004. 2. Criminal Revision has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 10-5-1980 Munna Lal alongwith his brother Amar Singh and father Lala Ram had gone to the slaughter house for slaughtering goats. They slaughtered their goats and Amar Singh, deceased had gone to the water pipe which was installed near the slaughter house to clean the meat. Data Ram and Pooran were also cleaning their meats. The informant was also removing the skin of goats 2-3 paces away from the water pipe. It is further stated that some altercation took place between Data Ram and Pooran on one hand and the deceased and Munna Lal on the other. They also threatened and left the place. It is further stated that Amar Singh, Munna Lal and Lala Ram went to their shop situated in mohalla Nagarchitola alongwith meat. Thereafter Amar Singh and Munnal Lal went towards their house in mohalla Rasoolpur on a bicycle. It is alleged that when they reached near the factory of Ismail accused Data Ram and Pooran met them who were coming from the eastern side. Pooran was armed with knife and they stopped them. Data Ram caught hold of the deceased and Pooran assaulted Amar Singh with a knife. Amar Singh died on the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Ram Autar and Babbu. The accused persons ran away throwing the knife at the scene of occurrence. The report was lodged at the police station at 7. 00 a. m. by the informant Munna Lal. 4. After registration of the F. I. R. , S. I. Deewan Singh started investigation of the case. He recorded the statement of Head Moharrir Gopal Prasad at the police station and reached at the scene of occurrence at about 7. 30 a. m. alongwith Sub-Inspector S. C. S. Tomar and three constables. He inspected the dead- body and prepared the inquest report (Ext. Ka-7 ). He recorded the statement of Head Moharrir Gopal Prasad at the police station and reached at the scene of occurrence at about 7. 30 a. m. alongwith Sub-Inspector S. C. S. Tomar and three constables. He inspected the dead- body and prepared the inquest report (Ext. Ka-7 ). He prepared naksha lash, Chalan lash and other relevant papers (Ext. Ka-8 and Ka-9) and dispatched the dead-body through constables Ram Swaroop and Rakesh Kumar for post-mortem examination. He recorded the statement of informant Munna Lal, Ram Autar and Babbu. He also prepared site-plan (Ext. Ka-12) and recovered blood stained and plain earth and prepared its recovery memo (Exts. Ka-4 and Ka-5 ). He also recovered one Chhuri and Chappal from the place of occurrence and prepared its recovery memo (Ext. Ka-13) and after completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet in the Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. Dr. Raj Kishore Gupta, Medical Officer, S. N. M. Hospital, Firozabad conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, Amar Singh and noted the following ante-mortem injuries: (1) Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x chest cavity deep on the left side chest 7 cm below with medial to left nipple 2 cm from mid line. (2) Incised wound 1 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the left forearm in front & upper 1/3rd. 6. According to the opinion of doctor the cause of death is shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante- mortem injuries. 7. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined six witnesses in all. 8. P. W. 1 Munna Lal is brother of the deceased. He is an eye-witness of the occurrence. P. W. 2 Ram Autar is also an eye-witness. P. W. 3 constable Ram Swaroop escorted the dead-body to the mortuary for the post-mortem examination. P. W. 4 Dr. Raj Kishore Gupta is the Medical Officer who had conducted the autopsy. P. W. 5 is Head Constable Gopal Prasad who prepared the chick report and G. D. P. W. 6 Sub- Inspector Deewan Singh is Investigating Officer of the case. The case of the defence is of denial. 9. The Sessions Judge relying upon the prosecution evidence convicted the appellants as aforesaid. The findings of the Sessions Judge are based upon the testimonies of two eye-witnesses namely P. W. 1 Munna Lal and P. W. 2 Ram Autar. The case of the defence is of denial. 9. The Sessions Judge relying upon the prosecution evidence convicted the appellants as aforesaid. The findings of the Sessions Judge are based upon the testimonies of two eye-witnesses namely P. W. 1 Munna Lal and P. W. 2 Ram Autar. 10. P. W. 1 Munna Lal stated that on the date of occurrence at about 6. 30 a. m. he alongwith his brother deceased Amar Singh, father Lala Ram reached at the slaughter house at about 5. 00 a. m. and they slaughtered the goats and thereafter his brother Amar Singh went to the water pipe situated few steps away from the slaughter house for cleaning the meat. Some altercation took place between his brother on the one hand and Data Ram and Pooran on the other, with regard to cleaning of meat. He was removing the skin of goats 2-3 steps away. Both the accused had left the place extending threats to his brother. He alongwith his father and brother brought the meat to their shop. Thereafter he and his brother Amar Singh were coming towards their house on a bicycle. They were also carrying the heads and skin of goats. It is stated that when they reached near the factory of Ismail, Data Ram and Pooran were coming from eastern side. Pooran was armed with knife and Data Ram was empty handed. They stopped their cycle and threatened them. Data Ram caught hold of Amar Singh and Pooran caused injuries with the knife. The occurrence took place at 6. 30 a. m. and Amar Singh died on the spot. Ram Autar, Babboo and Gaya Deen also reached at the place of occurrence. After the assault, Data Ram and Pooran ran away. They tried to apprehend them but failed. Pooran left the knife on the spot and Chappal of accused was also left at the place of occurrence. After the occurrence on his dictation Master Ranvir Singh prepared the F. I. R. (Ext. Ka-1 ). The report was registered at the police station at 7. 00 a. m. Thereafter the Investigating Officer reached at the place of occurrence. He prepared the inquest report and dispatched the dead-body to the mortuary. The Investigating Officer also collected the blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence. He also prepared recovery memo of knife and Chappal. The report was registered at the police station at 7. 00 a. m. Thereafter the Investigating Officer reached at the place of occurrence. He prepared the inquest report and dispatched the dead-body to the mortuary. The Investigating Officer also collected the blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence. He also prepared recovery memo of knife and Chappal. He also recovered watch, cycle, head and skin of goats and handed over in Supurdagi to his father. He further stated that about six months ago there was enmity with regard to wrestling match. He and Pooran had gone for wrestling and they defeated Pooran. On account of the defeat in wrestling he became inimical with them. He was also with his brother Amar Singh. He did not mention this enmity in the F. I. R. He further stated that when his brother was assaulted he had tried to save him but accused assaulted him also. He further stated that firstly accused had assaulted him and he saved himself. He did not mention this fact either in the F. I. R. or disclose it to the Investigating Officer. He stated that his brother had taken meal at 9. 00 p. m. and police had also summoned the dog squad. 11. P. W. 2 Ram Autar stated that on the date of occurrence at about 6. 30-7. 00 a. m. he had gone to take wood in mohalla Mohammadganj, Firozabad for bringing wood from Babloo. He stated that when they reached near the factory of Ismail accused persons Data Ram and Pooran were coming from the eastern side. Pooran was armed with knife. Munna Lal and Amar Singh were going on a cycle. They stopped the cycle and Pooran gave a blow of knife on the hand of Amar Singh. Thereafter Data Ram caught hold the waist of Amar Singh from the back. Thereafter Pooran gave a knife blow to Amar Singh. After assaulting the deceased accused persons ran away. They left the knife on the spot and Chappal of Pooran was also left on the spot. He stated that he had no relationship with Munna Lal and Amar Singh. In the cross- examination he stated that Amar Singh was plying the cycle and Munna Lal was sitting on the back. He again stated that Amar Singh was plying the cycle and Munna Lal was walking behind him. He stated that he had no relationship with Munna Lal and Amar Singh. In the cross- examination he stated that Amar Singh was plying the cycle and Munna Lal was sitting on the back. He again stated that Amar Singh was plying the cycle and Munna Lal was walking behind him. He did not know the reason as to why Investigating Officer had not mentioned in his statement that he was going to purchase the wood. He further stated that Pooran had given a knife blow on the hand of Amar Singh. This fact was disclosed to the Investigating Officer but he could not tell the reason as to why this fact is not mentioned in his statement. He further stated that Shobha Ram is his brother-in-law and he is tau of Amar Singh. 12. P. W. 3 constable Ram Swaroop stated that Investigating Officer had handed over to him the dead- body in a sealed condition alongwith the relevant papers for the post-mortem. He had produced the dead-body for post-mortem examination before the doctor at 1. 30 p. m. 13. P. W. 4 Dr. Raj Kishore Gupta is Medical Officer, S. N. M. Hospital, Firozabad who had conducted the post-mortem examination. 14. P. W. 5 Gopal Prasad is head constable. He stated that on the basis of the report (Ext. Ka-1) he prepared the chick report (Ext. Ka-3) and entered in the G. D. He further stated that special report was dispatched to the higher authorities at 7. 40 a. m. which is entered in the G. D. 15. P. W. 6 S. I. Deewan Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. He stated that after registration of the case he started the investigation. He recorded the statement of Head Moharrir Gopal Prasad. He prepared the inquest report, sealed the dead-body and handed over it to the constables for the post- mortem examination. He recorded the statements of complainant Munna Lal, Ram Autar, Babboo, Lala Ram and Gaya Deen. He prepared the site plan on the pointing out of the informant Munna Lal (Ext. Ka- 12 ). He had taken blood stained and plain earth and prepared its recovery memo (Ext. 4 and 5 ). He also recovered knife (Ext. 1) and Chappal (Ext. 2 and 3) and prepared its recovery memo (Ext. Ka-13 ). He prepared the site plan on the pointing out of the informant Munna Lal (Ext. Ka- 12 ). He had taken blood stained and plain earth and prepared its recovery memo (Ext. 4 and 5 ). He also recovered knife (Ext. 1) and Chappal (Ext. 2 and 3) and prepared its recovery memo (Ext. Ka-13 ). He had also taken in possession one watch, cycle, 3 heads of goat, skin of two goats and prepared its recovery memo (Ext. Ka-14 ). After conclusion of the investigation he submitted the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-15 ). In the cross-examination he stated that he had called the dog squad for searching the accused. The dog squad was called from Agra. Before the arrival of dog squad he did not search the houses of accused. He did not mention the time of arrival of dog squad. 16. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned A. G. A. for the State. 17. P. W. 1 is real brother of the deceased. P. W. 2 Ram Autar admitted that his brother-in-law Shobha Ram is Tau of the deceased Amar Singh. The Counsel for the appellants submits that their evidence should be rejected on the ground that they are not independent witnesses. This submission has no force. There is no such universal rule as to warrant rejection of the evidence of a witness merely because he was related to or interested. The Court has a duty to scrutinize their evidence with great care and caution and circumspection and be very careful too in weighing such evidence. 18. P. W. 1 Munna Lal had mentioned in the F. I. R. that Pooran had given a single blow. Thereafter in his evidence in Court he stated that firstly accused had attacked him and thereafter deceased was assaulted. This was mentioned for the first time in Court and he is improving the prosecution case to lend assurance of his presence at the spot. The enmity which he had alleged in the F. I. R. is with regard to some altercation for cleaning the meat. Subsequently he states that Pooran was inimical with him and his brother because he had defeated Pooran in a wrestling match and due to this defeat he had grudge against him and his brother also. The enmity which he had alleged in the F. I. R. is with regard to some altercation for cleaning the meat. Subsequently he states that Pooran was inimical with him and his brother because he had defeated Pooran in a wrestling match and due to this defeat he had grudge against him and his brother also. In view of this enmity he was the main target and surprisingly he did not receive any injury and now in Court he explains that he was assaulted first but he saved himself. 19. Another infirmity in his testimony is that in the F. I. R. he stated that Data Ram had caught hold of the deceased and Pooran had given a single blow. This version is in conflict with the post-mortem report. The post-mortem report indicates another incised wound 1 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the left fore- arm. In order to over come this conflict of the testimony of this witness and the post-mortem report P. W. 2 Ram Autar stated that Pooran had assaulted Amar Singh on the hand thereafter Data Ram had caught hold the deceased from the back and then Pooran had given a knife blow. Thus there is conflict in the statements of both the witnesses and the role of assault creates doubt about their witnessing the occurrence. 20. P. W. 2 Ram Autar in the examination-in-chief stated that Munna Lal and Amar Singh are not his relation but in the cross-examination he stated that Shobha Ram is his brother-in-law and he is Tau of Amar Singh. He was deliberately suppressing his relationship with the deceased. P. W. 1 Munna Lal stated that at the time of occurrence both of them were sitting on the cycle and P. W. 2 Ram Autar stated that Munna Lal was coming on foot behind the cycle. This creates doubt about his presence at this place of occurrence because earlier witnesses stated that they were carrying the head and skin of goats therefore it was not possible for them to sit on the cycle. 21. This creates doubt about his presence at this place of occurrence because earlier witnesses stated that they were carrying the head and skin of goats therefore it was not possible for them to sit on the cycle. 21. Another circumstance pointed out by the Counsel for the appellant is that P. W. 6 Deewan Singh Investigating Officer of the case stated that he prepared the inquest report after registration of the F. I. R. but a perusal of the inquest report indicates that the column, in which the name of the person who had informed about the dead-body, is left blank. In the inquest report it is also mentioned that the information is received from Munna Lal that the dead-body of his brother is lying on a road and some one had killed him and there are many cuttings in the report. Name of Munna Lal was added on the second page of the inquest report. It is visible to the naked eye that his name was added subsequently in a space, which was left blank. In view of the discussion made above the testimonies of both the eye- witnesses are not such on which reliance could be placed. There is conflict in their versions about the manner of assault and they are also improving their testimonies to reconcile with the medical evidence. 22. Counsel for the appellant further submits that according to the post-mortem examination also the time of occurrence is wrongly mentioned. The contents of post-mortem report indicates that in the small intestine semi digested food material was present and the stomach was empty and in the large intestine faecal matter was present. According to the testimony of P. W. 1 Munna Lal he and his brother had taken dinner at 9. 00 p. m. The presence of semi digested food shows that the occurrence had taken place much earlier than the time of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. 23. In the result the appeal is allowed. The order dated 11-9-1981 passed by IV Addl. Sessions Judge is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 24. Criminal Revision No. 1918 of 1981 is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed & Appeal allowed. .