Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT No. 1 Lilli alias Surendra Pandey and appellant No. 2 Pappu alias Pradeep Kumar Dubey have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each with default stipulation by the impugned judgment dated 13-10-1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 314/1996 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, District Jabalpur. ( 2. ) THE victim of the incident was deceased Shiv Kumari Tiwari. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 24-2-1996 at about 1:30 p. m. Ram Kishan (P. W. 8), while returning home during lunch hours on a motorcycle of his Deputy Ranger, received information that his younger brother Shiv kumar was being beaten up. Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) immediately rushed to save shiv Kumar and on reaching Majhgawan Road he saw appellant No. 2 dragging shiv Kumar and appellant No. 1 repeatedly stabbing in his chest and stomach with a knife. Appellant No. 2 then fell Shiv Kumar on the road and struck many blows on his neck with a "gupti". Ram Kishan (P. W. 8), on seeing the incident, shouted at the appellants but they fled on their two wheeler towards Umaria road. Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) immediately went to Shiv Kumar who died in agony before him. The incident took place in front of the house of appellant No. 2. Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) rushed to Police Chowki, Khitola, and lodged the report, exh. P-5, at 2:35 p. m. about the incident which was recorded by Town Inspector k. C. Bajpai (P. W. 15 ). The distance of police chowki from the place of incident is three kilometers. The report of Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) was later recorded as first Information Report, Exh. P-6, at Police Station, Sihora, District Jabalpur by Sub Inspector D. S. Chouhan (P. W. 11 ). Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) in his report, exh. P-5, categorically named the appellants as the assailants of Shiv Kumar. Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) also mentioned in the report that the incident was witnessed by other persons. K. C. Bajpai (P. W. 15) came to the place of incident and prepared the spot map and Inquest Report, Exh. P-10, of deceased Shiv kumar. He also recorded the statements of witnesses. ( 4. ) DR. Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) also mentioned in the report that the incident was witnessed by other persons. K. C. Bajpai (P. W. 15) came to the place of incident and prepared the spot map and Inquest Report, Exh. P-10, of deceased Shiv kumar. He also recorded the statements of witnesses. ( 4. ) DR. S. P. Tiwari (P. W. 10) conducted the post-mortem examination on the date of incident itself and found as many as 14 ante-mortem stab and incised wounds mostly in stomach, chest and neck region of the body of Shiv kumar. He in his post mortem report, Exh. P-l, opined that the case of death of shiv Kumar was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries on vital organs of the body. He also opined that the time passed since death to postmortem was within 24 hours. ( 5. ) SUB-INSPECTOR B. D. Pandey (P. W. 16) arrested the appellants on 27-2-1996. He recovered a "gupti" from the possession of appellant No. 2 vide exh. P-13, on the basis of his statement Exh. P-15, and a knife vide Exh. P-14 from the possession of appellant No. 1 pursuant to his statement, Exh. P-16. ( 6. ) DR. R. K. Jain (P. W. 14) examined the appellants on 27-2-1996 and found five incised wounds mostly on the left palm of appellant No. 1, which were simple in nature. Dr. R. K. Jain (P. W. 14) opined in his injury report, Exh. P-22, that the duration of these injuries was between 72 to 96 hours and were caused by a sharp edged object. He also found two simple insised injuries on the palms of appellant No. 2 and their duration too was between 72 to 96 hours. The injury report of Dr. R. K. Jain (P. W. 14) in this regard is Exh. P-23. ( 7. ) SUB-INSPECTOR B. D. Pandey (P. W. 16) after completing the investigation filed a charge-sheet against the appellants for an offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 8. ) THE defence of the appellants before the Trial Court was that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity and the eye-witnesses, relied upon by the prosecution, had actually not seen the incident. They also examined five witnesses in support of their defence. ( 8. ) THE defence of the appellants before the Trial Court was that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity and the eye-witnesses, relied upon by the prosecution, had actually not seen the incident. They also examined five witnesses in support of their defence. The appellants in their statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, explained that injuries on their person were caused by the police after they were arrested. ( 9. ) THE Trial Court, relying upon the evidence of eye-witnesses subhash Kumar Garg (P. W. 1), Umed Singh (P. W. 2) and Ram Kishan (P. W. 8), convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. The Trial Court also relied upon the post-mortem report, Exh. P-l, prepared by Dr. S. P. Tiwari (P. W. 10)and the evidence of seizure of weapons used in the offence from the possession of appellants. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence of defence witnesses rejected the defence of appellants. ( 10. ) THE learned Counsel for appellants has argued that witnesses subhash Kumar Garg (P. W. 1), Umed Singh (P. W. 2) and Ram Kishan (P. W. 8)were perjured and the Trial Court committed an illegality in relying upon their evidence. He also submitted that Ram Kishan (P. W. 8), being a brother of deceased Shiv Kumar, is an interested witness and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his evidence. He further argued that as Subhash Kumar Garg (P. W. 1)and Umed Singh (P. W. 2) were chance witnesses and not named in the report, exh. P-5, of Ram Kishan (P. W. 8), as witnesses, their evidence cannot be relied. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, defended the appreciation of these witnesses by the Trial Court in holding the guilt of appellants. ( 11. ) IT is now well settled that the evidence of witness cannot be disregarded merely because of his relation with the victim. It only requires close scrutiny by the Courts and, if found truthful, it can be relied upon. Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) has testified that on 24-2-1996 at about 1:30 p. m. during lunch hours, while returning home on a motorcycle, he was informed by a person at railway crossing that Shiv Kumar was being beaten up. It only requires close scrutiny by the Courts and, if found truthful, it can be relied upon. Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) has testified that on 24-2-1996 at about 1:30 p. m. during lunch hours, while returning home on a motorcycle, he was informed by a person at railway crossing that Shiv Kumar was being beaten up. He has categorically deposed that as he reached the place of incident, he saw appellant No. 2 dragging Shiv kumar and appellant No. 1 repeatedly stabbing in his chest and stomach with a knife. He has further testified that appellant No. 2 then fell Shiv Kumar on the road and struck many blows on his neck with a "gupti". According to the evidence of Ram Kishan (P. W. 8), appellants fled on their two wheeler when he shouted at them. Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) has further deposed that on seeing Shiv kumar dead he immediately rushed to police chowki where he lodged the report, Exh. P-5, against the appellants. Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) has categorically denied the suggestion made by the appellants in his cross-examination that he had falsely implicated them at the behest of persons with whom they had enmical relations. The evidence of "ram Kishan (P. W. 8) is fully corroborated by his report, Exh. P-5, which was lodged soon after the incident at 2:35 p. m. The post-mortem report, Exh. P-l, also corroborates the evidence of Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) regarding the injuries received by Shiv Kumar. Subhash Kumar Garg (P. W. 1) and Umed Singh (P. W. 2) have fully corroborated the evidence of Ram kishan (P. W. 8) against the appellants. Both these witnesses have clearly testified that they saw the appellants stabbing Shiv Kumar with knife and "gupti" and when Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) reached the place of incident on a motorcycle during the assault, he shouted at the appellants, but they fled on their two wheeler. Ram Kishan (P. W. 8), Subhash Kumar Garg (P. W. 1) and umed Singh (P. W. 2) have stood firm in their evidence that the appellants had repeatedly stabbed Shiv Kumar with a knife and "gupti" on the road. Nothing has been brought on record to disregard their evidence. Ram Kishan (P. W. 8), Subhash Kumar Garg (P. W. 1) and umed Singh (P. W. 2) have stood firm in their evidence that the appellants had repeatedly stabbed Shiv Kumar with a knife and "gupti" on the road. Nothing has been brought on record to disregard their evidence. It is true that Ram kishan (P. W. 8) has stated in his cross-examination that he made the report at police chowki within 10 minutes from the date of incident but for this exaggerated statement alone, we are not inclined to hold that his report, Exh. P-5, is delayed rendering the prosecution story suspicious. It is to be noted that ram Kishan (P. W. 8) has also clarified that he did not wear a watch at the time of incident. The distance of police chowki is three kilometers. Thus, Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) could not have reached the police chowki within 10 minutes from the time of incident under any circumstances. Report, Exh. P-5, was in fact made promptly at 2:35 p. m. ( 12. ) WE are not impressed by the submission made on behalf of appellants that the conduct of Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) in not coming forward to rescue Shiv Kumar when he was in the clutches of assailants was unreal and, therefore, his evidence deserves to be discarded. In our considered view the conduct of Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) was not unnatural at all because the moment he saw the appellants stabbing Shiv Kumar he shouted at them and when the appellants seeing him fled from the place of incident, he rushed to Shiv Kumar but Shiv Kumar died immediately. Moreover, in Rana Pratap and others Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 680 , the Supreme Court has held that everyone reacts in his own special way and there is no set rule of natural reaction and to discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in a particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. ( 13. ) WE are also not in agreement with the submission that as Subhash kumar Garg (P. W. 1) and Umed Singh (P. W. 2) were chance witnesses and not named in the report of Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) as witnesses, reliance cannot be placed on their evidence. ( 13. ) WE are also not in agreement with the submission that as Subhash kumar Garg (P. W. 1) and Umed Singh (P. W. 2) were chance witnesses and not named in the report of Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) as witnesses, reliance cannot be placed on their evidence. The incident took place on the road and, therefore, the incident could have been witnessed by the persons going on that road. Subhash kumar Garg (P. W. 1) and Umed Singh (P. W. 2) were going on that road at the time of incident and though they would be technically chance witnesses but that fact by itself would not be enough to discredit their evidence. It is also to be noted that report, Exh. P-5, of Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) was made within an hour from the time of incident. In the report, Exh. P-5, Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) has clearly mentioned that the incident was witnessed by other persons. Apparently, ram Kishan (P. W. 8) was in hurry to see that the appellants who had fled were immediately arrested. Thus, merely because Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) did not mention the names of Subhash Kumar Garg (P. W. 1) and Umed Singh (P. W. 2), in his report. Their evidence cannot be disbelieved more so, when no enmity against these witnesses has been established by the appellants. ( 14. ) THE learned Counsel for appellants has argued that, despite there being number of houses around the place of incident, the police did not examine a single witness of that locality which creates a doubt in the prosecution story. K. C. Bajpai (P. W. 15) has clearly explained in Paragraph 19 of his cross-examination that he had approached the residents of that locality but none claimed to have seen the incident and, therefore, he did not make them witnesses. K. C. Bajpai (P. W. 15) has also testified that he even made an entry of this fact in the police case diary. As already stated above, the incident took place in front of the house of appellant No. 1 and the possibility of the residents of that place not coming forward to spoil their relations with him cannot be ruled out. As already stated above, the incident took place in front of the house of appellant No. 1 and the possibility of the residents of that place not coming forward to spoil their relations with him cannot be ruled out. Subhash Kumar Garg (P. W. 1) and Umed Singh (P. W. 2) have also testified that but for Ram Kishan (P. W. 8) they did not see any one at the time and place of incident. We, therefore, reject this argument of the learned Counsel for appellants. ( 15. ) IT is true that in the inquest, Exh. P-10, the names of appellants are not mentioned but now it is well settled that merely because of the absence of name of accused in inquest report, it cannot be inferred that his name was not disclosed as murderer till Panchnama was completed as there is no requirement of law that inquest Panchnama should contain the name of accused (See Shaikh ayub Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 1285 ). The appellants are, thus, not entitled for any benefit on the ground of absence of their names in the inquest report. ( 16. ) THE learned Counsel for appellants, relying upon the evidence of dr. S. P. Tiwari (P. W. 10) that rigor mortis was present on the body of Shiv Kumar at the time of post-mortem lastly argued that Shiv Kumar died much prior to 1:30 p. m. which shows that the witnesses were perjured and not reliable. We are of the view that this argument is not well founded. Dr. S. P. Tiwari (P. W. 10) has opined in the post-mortem report, Exh. P-l, that the time passed since death to post-mortem was within 24 hours. Post-mortem started at 4. 30 p. m. on the date of incident itself. Onset of rigor mortis is quicker if the muscles are feeble and exhausted and in the case of cut throat injury, rigor mortis sets in much early. Modi too has mentioned in his book "medical Jurisprudence And Toxicology" (15th Edition, Page 135) about occurring of cases in which rigor mortis developed and disappeared within an hour and half after death. The body of Shiv kumar had as many as 14 stab and incised wounds mostly on neck, chest and stomach region. His trachea above thyroid cartilage and right carotid vessels were found cut. The body of Shiv kumar had as many as 14 stab and incised wounds mostly on neck, chest and stomach region. His trachea above thyroid cartilage and right carotid vessels were found cut. Early development of rigor mortis on the body of Shiv Kumar, therefore, cannot be ruled out. Rigor mortis is only a rough guide for determining the time of death. Thus, it cannot be held that the time of death of Shiv Kumar was much prior to 1:30 p. m. on the date of incident and the witnesses were un-reliable only for the reason they stated that the incident took place at about 1. 30 p. m. ( 17. ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants could not point out any illegality in the appreciation of evidence of defence witnesses by the Trial Court for rejecting the defence of appellants. We too have perused the evidence of defence witnesses and we find no ground to hold that eye-witnesses Subhash kumar Garg (P. W. 1), Umed Singh (P. W. 2) and Ram Kishan (P. W. 8), had any reason to falsely implicate the appellants. ( 18. ) FOR these reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed.