JUDGMENT H.S. Bhalla, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.2. 1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby he convicted the appellants under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants, namely, Ajit Singh, Bakshish Singh and Hardev Singh @ Baldev Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each and they were ordered to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-each; in default thereof, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 2. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under:­- On 21.7.1996 Swaran Singh son of Inder Singh (PW-2) made a statement (Ex. PC) before SI Faqir Fateh Singh, Police Station Sarhali alleging therein that he is the resident of village Sarhali. He along with members of his family is residing in the farm house constructed in fields belonging to his in-laws in village Dhotian. He is an agriculturist. His son Jassa Singh does agriculture work in village Sarhali. About one year back, his another son Darshan Singh contracted marriage with Sukhraj daughter of Ajit Singh, a maternal uncle, from their brotherhood. Ajit Singh and his brothers objected to this marriage. The Panchayats were also convened from time to time. They were asking their daughter Sukhraj Kaur to return her parental house. She remained adamant that she will not come back to her parental house. She and Darshan Singh started residing at Amritsar. About one month before the occurrence, they started putting up at Sarhali. On 20.7.1996 his son (Darshan Singh) and daughter-in-law Sukhraj Kaur went to meet his father’s sister Piaro wife of Bachan Singh, resident of Kairon, on cycle. Today i.e., on 21.7.1996 he (Swaran Singh) and his son Jassa Singh were irrigating their land by operating diesel engine installed in their land in village Sarhali. At 10.00 A.M. Darshan Singh was returning to Sarhali from Kairon on his cycle. When he reached parallel to the farm house of Amarjit Singh son of Mohan Singh of village Sarhali, in the meantime, a tanker, being driven by accused Bakshish Singh son of Chanan Singh with whom Ajit Singh son of Chanan Singh, Hardev Singh son of Chanan Singh (accused) were sitting in the cabin, came and hit against the cycle of Darshan Singh, who fell down on the ground. The said accused having alighted from the tanker, picked up Darshan Singh and put him in the cabin of the tanker and turned back the tanker towards village Shakri. They, having stopped the tanker near the fields of Banta Singh son of Wariam Singh, dragged out Darshan Singh from the cabin. He (Darshan Singh) raised a hue and cry and at that time, the above named accused were duly armed with kirpan each. He and his son Jassa Singh, on hearing commotion, ran towards the road and saw that Ajit Singh accused gave a kirpan blow on the head of Darshan Singh followed by a kirpan blow from Bakshish Singh accused hitting Darshan Singh on the back of his right shoulder. Hardev Singh dealt a kirpan blow hitting Darshan Singh on his right hand wrist and he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, all the three accused delivered blows with their respective kirpans hitting Darshan Singh on his neck, jaw and when they raised an alarm, the accused sped away with their respective weapons in the tanker. They found Darshan Singh dead. Swaran Singh proceeded to the Police Station for reporting the matter to the police after leaving his other son Jassa Singh near the dead body of Darshan Singh. When he was proceeding, on the way, he met Faqir Fateh Singh Sub Inspector (PW-7), who recorded his statement, Ex. PC, and sent the same to the Police Station along with his own endorsement, Ex. PC/1 and on the basis of which, formal FIR, Ex. PC/2, was recorded. 3. Sub Inspector accompanied by Swaran Singh (PW-2) visited the place of occurrence. He prepared rough site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He lifted blood stained earth from near the dead body of the deceased and the same was turned into sealed parcel and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PD. Then Faqir Fateh Singh, Sub Inspector, went to the place, where the tanker had struck against the cycle and from that place, the cycle along with a pair of shoes were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P-10. Sub Inspector sent the dead body for post mortem examination and recorded the statements of the witnesses. PD. Then Faqir Fateh Singh, Sub Inspector, went to the place, where the tanker had struck against the cycle and from that place, the cycle along with a pair of shoes were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P-10. Sub Inspector sent the dead body for post mortem examination and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After post mortem examination, Iqbal Singh, Head Constable, produced one shirt, one pant and one underwear before Sub Inspector Faqir Fateh Singh and the same were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PQ. 4. On 31.7.1996, a secret information was received at Adda Naushera Pannuan that Ajit Singh, Bakshish Singh and Hardev Singh accused could be apprehended if a naqa is held near Dhotian and accordingly a naqa was set up. In the meantime, a tanker came from the side of village Kot Mehmad Khan, which was stopped and it was being driven by Bakshish Singh accused and Ajit Singh and Hardev Singh accused were sitting inside the Tanker. They were apprehended. On interrogation, Ajit Singh accused disclosed that he had kept concealed a kirpan in his kotha containing chaff. His disclosure statement, Ex. PG, was recorded. On interrogation, Bakshish Singh accused disclosed to have kept concealed a kirpan under the cow dung cakes in his house. His disclosure statement, Ex. PH was also recorded. Hardev Singh @ Baldev Singh accused, on interrogation, disclosed to have kept concealed a kirpan in the courtyard of the house of Ajit Singh underneath the heap of bricks. His disclosure statement, Ex. PJ was reduced into writing. Thereafter, Ajit Singh accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement, got recovered the kirpan from the disclosed place. After completion of necessary investigation, accused were sent up for trial. 5. Accused were charge-sheeted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Dr. After completion of necessary investigation, accused were sent up for trial. 5. Accused were charge-sheeted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Dr. O.P. Gupta (PW-1), Swaran Singh, complainant (PW-2), ASI Bawa Singh (PW-3), Manjit Singh, Patwari (PW-4), Lakhwinder Singh, Patwari (PW-5), Jassa Singh, eye witness (PW-6), Faqir Fateh Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-7), Investigating officer of this case; Swaran Singh, Inspector (PW-8), Tejinder Singh, Constable (PW-9), Iqbal Singh Head Constable (PW-10), Sarabjit -Singh, Constable (PW-11), Mohinder Pal Singh (PW-12), Piara Singh (PW-13), and after giving up some of the witnesses unnecessary; Jagtar Singh (PW) as won over by the accused and after tendering into evidence, reports of serologist, Ex. PX and Ex. PY, closed its evidence. 7. Accused when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. However, accused did not lead any evidence in defence and closed the same. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 9. The learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon delayed special report and as such the entire prosecution version becomes doubtful. Learned counsel has further argued that the delayed special report materially affects the story of the prosecution. In order to lend support to his contention, the learned counsel pointed out that the First Information Report, Ex. PC/2 was received by ilIaqa Magistrate at 7.00 P.M., whereas the occurrence took place at 10.00 A.M. and thus, obviously, there is a delay of 09 hours during which possibility of falsely roping the accused in this case after due deliberations and confabulations cannot be ruled out. 10. We have considered this submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. In view of the facts and circumstances available on the record and for the reasons to be recorded by us hereinafter in this part of the judgment, the contention of the learned counsel is not liable to be accepted. 10. We have considered this submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. In view of the facts and circumstances available on the record and for the reasons to be recorded by us hereinafter in this part of the judgment, the contention of the learned counsel is not liable to be accepted. It is true that the special report reached the hands of the ilIaqa Magistrate at 7.00 P.M. on 21.7.1996, but this delay is not per se fatal to the prosecution case as Tejinder Singh Constable (PW-9) whom the special reports were sent by ASI Gurbachan Singh, has not been cross-examined about the delay in delivering the special report and the present argument is an after thought. We find from the record that Tejinder Singh Constable (PW-9) has solemnly affirmed in his affidavit, Ex. PR that special reports pertaining to this case were handed over by ASI Gurbachan Singh and he had delivered the same to the concerned authorities including the ilIaqa Magistrate. He has not been cross-examined on the point of delay in delivering the special report. The defence did not ask any question on the point of delay, if any, in delivering the special report and that is why, no explanation through the mouth of Tejinder Singh Constable (PW-9) in delivering the special report to the lIaqa Magistrate at 7.00 P.M. was put forward. Normally, it has been seen that some time when the official through whom special report is sent loses some time in locating the residence of the Magistrate or at the first instance the pendency on part of the constable to deliver the special report to the other authorities before coming to the Ilaqa Magistrate. Moreover, Police Station Sarhali is about 20 Kms away from Taran Taran. Tejinder Singh Constable (PW-9) would have lost some time at the bus stand since he went by bus to reach Taran Taran from Sarhali. In the present set up, no police station can be expected to have only one case to look into. A little delay in lodging the FIR with the Magistrate should not be seen with suspicion. Occurrence took place at about 10.00 A.M. and statement of the complainant was concluded at 11.30 A.M. All this clearly spells out that the matter was reported with the police promptly and this absolutely rules out the possibility of false implication of the accused in this case. Occurrence took place at about 10.00 A.M. and statement of the complainant was concluded at 11.30 A.M. All this clearly spells out that the matter was reported with the police promptly and this absolutely rules out the possibility of false implication of the accused in this case. It is settled law that.. “where the FIR was actually recorded without any delay and the investigation started on the basis of that FIR and there is no other infirmity brought to the notice of the court, then, however, improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the magistrate concerned, in the absence of any prejudice to the accused, it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable.” In the instant case, as already discussed above, the First Information Report was lodged promptly and there is nothing on the record to spell out that the investigation was tainted and on the basis of prompt FIR, the police machinery was set into motion at the earliest and in case the Investigating Officer tried to help the accused being a police officer by delaying the dispatch of First Information Report, is not a circumstance by virtue of which the prosecution version can be thrown out. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that Swaran Singh (PW-2) and Jassa Singh (PW-6) are father and real brother of the deceased and Piara Singh (PW-13) is a paternal uncle of the deceased and they being closely related to the deceased, no reliance should be placed on their testimony. All these star witnesses of the prosecution, who have provided ocular version were cross-examined at length, but nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the defence. The presence of these witnesses at the place of occurrence could not be doubted and the very fact that they are undoubtedly relation of deceased that by itself do not make their evidence unreliable. It only puts the court to scrutnise their evidence with more than ordinary care. It is not the law tat the evidence of an interested witnesses should be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. It only puts the court to scrutnise their evidence with more than ordinary care. It is not the law tat the evidence of an interested witnesses should be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. Once the Court is satisfied that the evidence of an interested witness has a ring of truth, such evidence could be relied upon even without any corroboration and in the instant case, the version put forward through the mouth of Swaran Singh (PW-2) and Jassa Singh (PW-6), which is also supported by medical evidence, inspire confidence. In the instant case, the occurrence took place in such a manner, where only interested witness could be available and circumstances do spell out that both these witnesses have witnessed the occurrence and it would not be proper to hold that the evidence of a family member should be disbelieved because of their of their interestedness. Moreover, we would also like to observe that the relation witnesses shall be the least disposed to falsely implicate the appellant or substitute him in place of the real culprit. Both the witnesses, namely, Swaran Singh (PW-2) and Jassa Singh (PW-6) have deposed in a similar fashion and they have disclosed about the occurrence, which took place on 21.7.1996. Jassa Singh (PW-6) deposed that he and his father Swaran Singh were irrigating their fields, which fall in village Sarhali. The land of village Shakri adjoins their land. At about 9.45 A.M. They saw Darshan Singh deceased coming on a bicycle from the side of village Kairon towards their village. When his brother reached near the behak of Amarjit Singh son of Mohan Singh, a tanker came from behind, which was being driven by Bakshish Singh accused. Hardev Singh and Ajit Singh were also present in the tanker: Bakshish Singh struck his tanker in. the cycle of Darshan Singh deceased, who fell down on the ground. Darshan Singh was all alone on the bicycle. Then all the accused came down from the tanker and forcibly picked up Darshan Singh and put him in the tanker. Then they again turned back their tanker towards village Kairon and started towards that side. They stopped their tanker near the field of Banta Singh son of Waryam Singh. Darshan Singh was all alone on the bicycle. Then all the accused came down from the tanker and forcibly picked up Darshan Singh and put him in the tanker. Then they again turned back their tanker towards village Kairon and started towards that side. They stopped their tanker near the field of Banta Singh son of Waryam Singh. The place where they stopped their tanker is at a distance of 1-1/2 kills from the place where he and his father were working. Accused then brought out Darshan Singh deceased from the tanker. At that time, Darshan Singh was raising a raula. All the three accused were armed with kirpan each. He and Swaran Singh also started towards the tanker. Within their sight, Ajit Singh accused gave a kirpan blow, which hit Darshan Singh deceased on his head, Thereafter, Bakshish Singh accused gave a kirpan blow to Darshan Singh hitting on his back of right shoulder. Hardev Singh accused gave a kirpan blow hitting Darshan Singh on his right wrist. On account of receipt of these injuries, Darshan Singh fell down on the ground. While he was falling down on the ground, Bakshish Singh accused gave a kirpan blow on the neck of Darshan Singh. Hardev Singh gave a kirpan blow, which hit the jaw of Darshan Singh. On raising an alarm, accused along with their weapon and tanker ran away towards village Kairon. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has pointed out some discrepancies in the prosecution story and submitted that the story of the prosecution is not free from any doubt and this benefit should be given to the appellants. In order to lend support to his contention, he referred to the statement of Swaran Singh (PW-2), wherein he has stated in his statement, Ex. PC, that the fields of Banta Singh were at a distance of 1-1/2 killas from the place where he and Jassa Singh were working and when confronted with Ex. PC, it was not found so recorded therein and he stated that he had disclosed in his statement Ex. PC that the injury on the neck was given by Bakshish Singh and injury on the jaw was given by accused Hardev Singh and when confronted it was not found so recorded therein. PC, it was not found so recorded therein and he stated that he had disclosed in his statement Ex. PC that the injury on the neck was given by Bakshish Singh and injury on the jaw was given by accused Hardev Singh and when confronted it was not found so recorded therein. Further Jassa Singh (PW-6), had stated before the police that their land abuts the boundary of village Shakri and when confronted with his statement, Ex. DA, it was not found so recorded therein. Further it is in his cross-examination that he had stated in his statement that after his brother Darshan Singh fell down on the ground, Bakshish Singh gave him injury on his neck and Hardev Singh also gave injury on his jaw and when he was confronted with his statement, Ex. DA, it was not found so recorded in his police statement and further Piara Singh (PW-13) has stated that he had got recorded his in police station that he was proceeding to Shakri on foot and when confronted with his statement Ex.DA the word ‘foot’ was not specifically mentioned therein. All these discrepancies examined in the light of the other evidence available on the record, to our mind, are minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case and not going to the root of the matter and would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The witnesses mentioned above have stood like a rock and have disclosed the entire occurrence witnessed by them and moreover, even an honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. It has been rightly observed that cross-examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer. 13. Recoveries of the swords in pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by all the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act further advances the case of the prosecution towards the guilt of the appellants. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, non-joining of an independent witness at the time of recovery of the weapon does not cause any dent in the prosecution version. 14. Presence of the witnesses Jassa Singh (PW-6) and Piara Singh (PW-13) is natural as they, being owner of the land, could be expected to be irrigating the same. 14. Presence of the witnesses Jassa Singh (PW-6) and Piara Singh (PW-13) is natural as they, being owner of the land, could be expected to be irrigating the same. The serologist, vide his report, Ex.PY, has opined that two kirpans were found stained with human blood, whereas the opinion regarding the nature of blood on the third kirpan could not be given for the blood stained on the same having disintegrated. The medical evidence has further advanced the case of the prosecution and proves the guilt of the appellant. Dr. O.P.Gupta (PW-1) has categorically disclosed that during the course of post mortem examination, he found six injuries on the person of the deceased:­- “1. Incised wound on the right side of the neck extending from front to back. Margins regular, measuring 18.5 cms x 5 cms x 6 cms. Clotted blood was present. On dissection skin superficial and deep facie underlying muscles and big blood vessel including the external carotid, external jugular sharply cut, upto survical vertebrae and also spinal cord, severed at level of C.3 and CA. 2. Incised wound on the right or the head, in the temporal area. Margins regular measuring 4.5 cms x 1 cm Clotted blood present, Injury was scalp deep. 3. A haemotomas swelling on the back of right side chest in scapular area measuring 3.5 cm x 2.5 cm. 4. An incised wound on the right side foot on the outer side measuring 2.5 cms x 1 cm. Margins regular. Clotted blood present. 5. An incised wound on the right wrist on the back measuring 2.5 x 1 cm. Clotted blood present. Margins regular. 6. A swelling on the back of head in the occipital area, measuring 4 x 2.5 cm on opening, it contained blood thick and clotted. On deeper examination, the underlying bone showed breach of continuity on its surface.” From the medical evidence, it is quite manifest that stomach contained 150 cc of semi digested food. Occurrence took place at 10.00 A.M. The deceased was to come from village Kairon to Sarhali. This distance may be 8 to 10 Kms approximately. He was to cover this distance on a cycle and in the normal course, he would have taken his regular break fast before proceeding. Occurrence took place at 10.00 A.M. The deceased was to come from village Kairon to Sarhali. This distance may be 8 to 10 Kms approximately. He was to cover this distance on a cycle and in the normal course, he would have taken his regular break fast before proceeding. It was the month of July when the occurrence took place and in such like circumstances, he would have taken his break fast between 7.30 to 8.30 A.M. and as per medical jurisprudence, it takes three to five hours to digest food before proceeding and that too, depends upon ­the kind of the food taken. The food found in the stomach of the deceased being semi digested, it is established that the occurrence did take place at 10.00 A.M. As many as six injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased. Out of them, four were incised wounds. The doctor has categorically deposed that all the injuries were caused with sharp edged weapon. Thus, the ocular evidence fits in with the medical evidence establishing the case of the prosecution. 15. The motive attributed to the accused is that Sukhraj Kaur daughter of Ajit Singh accused had contracted marriage with the deceased in the Court and Panchayats were convened from time to time and the accused party were pressing for return of Sukhraj Kaur to her parental house. The accused who are Jat by caste would have definitely been taking the marriage of Sukhraj Kaur with the deceased against their wishes and they were looking for an opportunity to do away with the deceased. Therefore, the contention of the learned defence counsel that no motive has been provided by the prosecution is again liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. Moreover, we would also like to observe with regard to motive part that it is state of mind of the culprit and this element exclusively hidden in it and specially when it sprouts for the commission of offence that cannot be judged precisely. It is neither obligatory nor incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove the motive but if it can provide to the Court for appreciating the evidence, this would be additional circumstance to prove the chain of the version. It is neither obligatory nor incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove the motive but if it can provide to the Court for appreciating the evidence, this would be additional circumstance to prove the chain of the version. Most heinous offences are committed for petty matters and some time for no motive but the Court cannot sit idle and shift its responsibility to arrive at a particular conclusion as to who is responsible for the commission of the offence. In order to conclude with regard to the motive in this case, we would finally like to observe that motive is not deciding factor in a criminal case and absence of motive does not speak of the innocence of the accused, where direct evidence against the accused is overwhelming. In view of the discussions made above, appeal filed by the appellants fails and is hereby dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court is upheld. ————————————————