Judgement R. S. CHAUHAN, J. :- The alleged murder of Arjun Singh, the testimonies of his mother and wife have brought the appellants before this Court. They are challenging the judgment dated 26-9-2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hindaun whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant No. 1, Babu Lal for offence under Section 302, I. P. C. and has sentenced him to life imprisonment and has imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo a rigorous imprisonment of two months in default thereof. The learned Judge has convicted appellant No. 2, Ghanshyam of offence under Section 326, I. P. C. and has sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 300/- and to further undergo a sentence of two months in default thereof. 2. According to the prosecution, on 14-1-2000, one Vijay Singh lodged a written report (Ex. P. 7) at Police Station Hindaun City wherein he alleged, "on 13-1-2000 around 7.00 p.m., his elder brother, Arjun Singh was returning back home from the village. As soon as he reached near the hand-pump of the village, Babu Lal, Ghanshyam, Battu s/o. Dalev, and the wives of Babu Lal and Battu surrounded him.. Babu Lal struck him with a sword and Ghanshyam hit him with an axe, the others assaulted him with "lathis" (bamboo sticks). Consequently, his brother, Arjun Singh expired on the spot. Arjun's mother, Mukti, tried to save her son. These persons also assaulted her. I, Arjun Singh's wife, Indra, my wife Kamlesh and Bharosi Jatt have witnessed this incident. The dead body of my brother is lying in the village. Since the night had begun and since there was no means of transportation, we could not lodge the report". On the basis of the said report, a formal FIR, FIR No. 35/2000 (Ex. P. 8) was chalked out for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 302, I. P. C. After the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against all the named accused persons for offences under Sections 148, 323, 302, 323/149 and 302/149, I. P. C. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and submitted twenty-three documents. The accused persons did not examine any witness in their defense. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge convicted the appellants as mentioned above. The accused persons did not examine any witness in their defense. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge convicted the appellants as mentioned above. But, the learned Judge acquitted Battu, Mst. Kastoori, and Mst. Chanti of the charges. Thus, this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Sangram Singh for Mr. V. S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the appellants has raised various contentions before this Court firstly, there is no motive for the alleged murder. The motive assigned by the prosecution, that there was some dispute between the parties over the land is unacceptable. For, the dispute over the land was an old one. Thus, it could not have provided the spark for the alleged crime. Secondly, there is contradiction between the ocular evidence of the alleged eye-witness and the medical evidence. Hence, the eyewitness cannot be believed. Thirdly, the star witness, P. W. 7, Mukti, is the mother of the deceased. Therefore, she is an interested witness. Other evidence has not corroborated her testimony. In fact, it has contradicted her testimony. Hence, she is an unreliable witness. Fourthly, Vijay Singh, the complainant, has turned hostile. Therefore, the entire prosecution looses its validity. Fifthly, similarly, Arjun Singh's wife was alleged to be an eye witness. Yet, in her testimony she clearly admits that by the time she reached the scene of the crime, Arjun Singh had already died. Sixthly, the other independent witnesses, P. W. 5-Kamlesh, and P. W. 9-Bharosi, have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have been declared hostile. Lastly, on the basis of the same evidence, three co-accused persons have been acquitted, while the present appellants have been convicted for two different offences. Hence, the prosecution case is replete with lacunae and doubts. 4. On the other hand, the Mr. M. L. Goyal, the learned Public Prosecutor, has supported the impugned judgment. According to the counsel in the case of direct evidence the absence of motive is not fatal to the prosecution. Secondly, the testimony of P. W. 7, Mukti, cannot be disbelieved, as she is an injured witness. Merely because she happens to be the mother of the deceased person, her testimony cannot be thrown out only on this ground. Thirdly, the medical evidence in fact corroborates her testimony. There is no great difference between her ocular evidence and the medical evidence. Merely because she happens to be the mother of the deceased person, her testimony cannot be thrown out only on this ground. Thirdly, the medical evidence in fact corroborates her testimony. There is no great difference between her ocular evidence and the medical evidence. Fourthly, the weapon of murder, namely the sword and the axe has been recovered from the appellant Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. The recovery was made on their information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Hence, the recovery links the appellants to the alleged crime. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 5. We have heard the learned counsels, have perused the impugned judgment and have examined the record. 6. Mukti, P. W. 7, is the star witness of the prosecution. According to her a day before "Sankrant" (the festival of "Makar Sankranti", celebrated on January 14th of each year), her son, Arjun had gone to the village to buy food grain. On his way back, when he reached near the governmental hand pump, he was surrounded by Babu Lal, Ghanshyam, Battu, Mst. Kastoori and Mst. Chanti. Babu Lal struck him with a sword on the back of his head, and Ghanshyam hit him with an axe. When she intervened, Babu Lal hit her on her left arm with a "lathi". She also named the other eyewitnesses. In her cross-examination she states that she had gone to fetch water from the hand pump as her daughter-in-law was suffering from fever that day. She further claims that Babu Lal hit her son on the head, and Ghanshyam hit him over the shoulder. According to the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. P 12), the deceased had sustained two injuries; one on the head and another on the shoulder. Sharp edged weapons caused both the injuries. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates this eyewitness. Although she is the mother of the deceased, but her testimony cannot be thrown out on the ground of her being an interested witness. Moreover, she herself is an injured witness. Hence, her presence at the scene of the crime cannot be doubted. Hence, there is no reason for disbelieving her testimony. 7. Furthermore, her testimony is corroborated by the testimonies of Indra (P. W. 3). Mst. Kamlesh (P. W. 5) and Anita (P. W. 6). All three of these witnesses reached the place of occurrence immediately after hearing the hue and cry. Hence, there is no reason for disbelieving her testimony. 7. Furthermore, her testimony is corroborated by the testimonies of Indra (P. W. 3). Mst. Kamlesh (P. W. 5) and Anita (P. W. 6). All three of these witnesses reached the place of occurrence immediately after hearing the hue and cry. According to Indra she saw the accused persons leaving the place immediately upon her arrival at the place. Anita claims to be an eyewitness. The learned Judge has rightly believed their testimonies. 8. In the case of State of A. P. v. Rayappa (2006) 4 SCC 512 : (2006 Cri LJ 1616), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "merely because witnesses were related to the deceased, they cannot be said to be interested witnesses and on that ground alone their testimony cannot be rejected." In the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A. P. (2006) 11 SCC 444 : (2006 Cri LJ 3899), the Apex Court held that the evidence of an interested witness can be acted upon if on careful and cautious scrutiny it is found to be reliable and probable. Where the witness has a motive to falsely implicate the accused, his testimony should be corroborated in material particulars before its acceptance. In the present case the evidence of P. W. 7, Mukti has been corroborated on material particulars both by direct evidence and by circumstantial evidence. Hence, she is a reliable witness. 9. It is a misnomer that merely because the complainant has turned hostile, the entire prosecution case should be thrown out. Such a contention is based on the premise that the evidence of a hostile witness should be rejected lock, stock and barrel. However, in the case of Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U. P. (2006) 2 SCC 450 : (2006 Cri LJ 1121), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "Evidence of a hostile witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether. It can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof." In his testimony Vijay Singh (P. W. 4) merely claims that he was not an eyewitness of the occurrence whereas in the FIR he had claimed to be an eyewitness. On the other accounts, he supports the prosecution. Hence, the rest of his evidence is reliable. 10. On the other accounts, he supports the prosecution. Hence, the rest of his evidence is reliable. 10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the alleged murder. But, in the case of direct evidence, lack of motive is immaterial. (Ref. to Major Singh v. State of Punjab (2006) 10 SCC 499 : (2007 Cri LJ 59). But in the present case, the prosecution has proved the motive. According to P. W. 3 Mst. Indra, P. W. 6 Anita and P. W. 7 Mukti, there was a land dispute between the deceased and the accused persons. While the land belonged to the deceased person, the accused persons were not letting him cultivate the same. The land dispute, although an old one, motivated the accused persons to kill the deceased. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel is unacceptable. 11. The learned Judge has also assigned cogent reasons for acquitting the other co-accused persons and for convicting the appellants for different offences. Merely because on the basis of the same set of evidence other co-accused persons have been acquitted, this fact by itself, would not buttress the case of those accused persons who have been convicted. The act of each accused would have to be adjudged on the basis of evidence produced against each individual accused person. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is unacceptable. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, therefore, it is dismissed and conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants Babulal and Ghanshyam respectively under Sections 302 and 326, I. P. C. are confirmed. The appellant, Ghanshyam is on bail, therefore, he shall be forthwith taken back into custody to serve out the sentence awarded to him. Appeal dismissed.