JUDGMENT Honble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.6.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in S.T. No. 538 of 1998 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life, under Section 504, I.P.C. and sentenced to two months imprisonment and under Section 506 (II) I.P.C. and sentenced to six months imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Shri Ram Prasad Vishwakarma, father of the informant was posted in P.H.C., Brahmpur as Lab Technician. On 23.5.1998 at about 5.00 p.m. he was returning from his duty alongwith his younger brother Satya Prakash on their respective cycles. When they reached near Goro Nala in village Tarkulahi, on account of previous enmity Shiv Chandra Kewat and Sawaru of his village started assaulting him with knives. His younger brother Satya Prakash rushed to save him but he was threatened. His brother started raising hue and cry. Several persons collected there and chased Shiv Chandra Kewat and Sawaru. Shiv Chandra Kewat made his escape good but Sawaru was apprehended on the spot. He alongwith his uncle Baliram Vishwakarma and several other villagers also reached there and saw that dead-body of his father was lying in the field. His younger brother Satya Prakash was there and Sawaru was also there in injured condition. He was taken for medical examination. 3. After the registration of the case, Sub Inspector Gauri Shankar Yadav commenced investigation and recorded the statement of the informant and reached at the place of occurrence. He also recorded the statement of Satya Prakash and prepared the inquest on the dead-body of the deceased which is Ext. Ka. 2. The dead-body was sealed and relevant papers for the post-mortem examination were prepared which are Exts. Ka. 3 and 4. He also collected the blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and the shoes of the deceased were also taken in possession under a recovery memo. 4. The post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. O.N. Gupta and he noted following ante-mortem injuries : 1. Incised wound 10 cm x 4 cm x Bone deep on the root of neck front. 2. Incised wound 5 x 2 cm x muscle deep on the Rt. side Neck middle. 3. 4. The post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. O.N. Gupta and he noted following ante-mortem injuries : 1. Incised wound 10 cm x 4 cm x Bone deep on the root of neck front. 2. Incised wound 5 x 2 cm x muscle deep on the Rt. side Neck middle. 3. Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep 1 cm above the injury No. 1 4. Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep over thinner eminence of left palm. 5. Incised wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep over the Base of left ring and little finger. 6. Multiple incised wound of 1 x ½ cm x muscle deep each on the area of 10 x 8 cm on the lateral aspect of Rt. abdomen. In the opinion of the Doctor cause of death of the deceased was haemorrhage and shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 5. After the conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Session and the Sessions Judge had framed charges under Section 302, 504 and 506 (II), I.P.C. 6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 9 witnesses. 7. P.W. 1 Krishna Bhagwan Vishwakarma deposed that his father Ram Prasad was Lab Technician in Primary Health Centre, Brahmpur and his house was situated in village Agahar Bazar. There was dispute about a passage between his father and father of the accused. His father had filed a case against the father of the accused in which father of the accused was got defeated and on that account there was enmity between them. On 23.5.1998 when he was present at his house alongwith family members and his father had gone to attend his duty and his younger brother Satya Prakash had gone to Jhagaha Bazar for purchasing some articles. At about 5.00 p.m. one person came on a motor-cycle and told him that his father was murdered in village Tarkulahi in the field of Panchu Yadav. He rushed to village Tarkulahi where he saw that dead-body of his father was lying and Sawaru was also lying in injured condition. His brother Satya Prakash informed him that Shiv Chand and Sawaru had committed the murder of his father. He prepared the report and lodged at the police station. He rushed to village Tarkulahi where he saw that dead-body of his father was lying and Sawaru was also lying in injured condition. His brother Satya Prakash informed him that Shiv Chand and Sawaru had committed the murder of his father. He prepared the report and lodged at the police station. Sawaru was taken to the hospital by Dinesh and some other persons. After the registration of the report one Inspector reached at the place of occurrence. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the inquest memo, which is Ext. Ka. 2. 8. P.W. 2 Satya Prakash Vishwakarma deposed that on 23.5.1998 he had gone to purchase some articles from Jhagaha market. His father met him there. After purchasing medicines he followed his father. When they reached under the bridge of village Tarkulahi, accused Shiv Chand and Sawaru of his village met them. Sawaru and Shiv Chand got fell down his father on the ground from the cycle and started assaulting with their respective knives, which they were carrying. He rushed to save his father, the accused also chased him and threatened. Several persons of the village reached there and chased Sawaru and Shiv Chand. Shiv Chand escaped but Sawaru was apprehended by the people and he was given beating too. After sometime, his brother reached there and he prepared the first information report. 9. P.W. 3 Dr. O.N. Gupta conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of Ram Prasad and proved the post-mortem report of Ram Prasad. He also conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Sawaru and noted following ante-mortem injuries: 1. Traumatic swelling 6 x 8 cm on Right parietal region. 2. Traumatic swelling 4 x 4 cm on the occipital region. 3. Abrasions 15 x 10 cm on the back of chest. 4. Abrasion 2 x 2 cm on the left elbow. 5. Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on the Rt. Wrist. 6. Contusion 4 x 4 cm over the sternal region. 7. Traumatic swelling 6 x 4 cm on the left side chest. 10. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 11. 5. Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on the Rt. Wrist. 6. Contusion 4 x 4 cm over the sternal region. 7. Traumatic swelling 6 x 4 cm on the left side chest. 10. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 11. P.W. 4 Dinesh Kumar deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 5.00 p.m. he was returning from Tarkulahi and as he reached near the bridge, he heard cries and saw that Sawaru and Shiva Chand were running and they were being chased by the people. They were running away after assaulting Ram Prasad by knives. Sawaru was apprehended and assaulted by kicks and fists and Shiva Chand fled away. Sawaru had thrown the knife in a Nala and he had sustained several injuries. He was breathing. He was also taken to the hospital where the doctor declared him brought dead. His dead-body was kept in the mortuary. He was also interrogated by the investigating officer. 12. P.W. 5 Gauri Shankar Yadav, Sub Inspector, deposed that after registration of Case Crime No. 216 of 1998 he commenced investigation. He recorded the statement of the informant and reached at the place of occurrence. He recorded the statement of Satya Prakash and prepared the inquest memo, which is Ext. Ka. 2. The dead-body was sealed. He had also prepared Form 13, Form 33, photo lash which are Ext. Ka. 3 and 4. He also collected blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared its recovery memo, which is Ext. Ka. 5. 13. P.W. 6 Raghuvir Singh, was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Khorabar. He had taken over the investigation of the case in the night on 23.5.1998. He prepared the site plan, which is Ext. Ka. 7. He also recorded the statement of Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma. On 24.5.1998 he recorded the statement of Radhey Shyam. On 14.7.1998 he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused, which is Ext. Ka. 8. 14. P.W. 7 is Constable Ram Dular. He had prepared the chik F.I.R. on the basis of the report lodged by the informant. Chik F.I.R. is Ext. Ka. 9 and he had also prepared G.D. entry, which is Ext. Ka. 10. 15. On 14.7.1998 he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused, which is Ext. Ka. 8. 14. P.W. 7 is Constable Ram Dular. He had prepared the chik F.I.R. on the basis of the report lodged by the informant. Chik F.I.R. is Ext. Ka. 9 and he had also prepared G.D. entry, which is Ext. Ka. 10. 15. P.W. 8 Alakhram Dwivedi, S.I. deposed that he was directed to get the post-mortem conducted on the dead-body of Sawaru. He prepared the inquest memo, which is Ext. Ka. 11. He had prepared the letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O., Challan lash, photo lash which is Exts. Ka. 12 to Ka. 15. The dead-body was sealed and handed over to Constable Deena Nath Yadav and Home Guard Jawahar Lal for carrying it to the mortuary. 16. P.W. 9 Constable Jai Prakash Tiwari deposed that he carried the dead-body of Ram Prasad to the mortuary for post-mortem. 17. The accused examined 4 witnesses in his defence. 18. D.W. 1 Kali Charan deposed that there was enmity with regard to a piece of land between Satya Prakash Vishwakarma and Ram Prasad Vishwakarma. Prior to the occurrence he alongwith Shiv Chand Kewat had gone to Sardar Nagar in connection with the marriage of his sister. They returned from there on 26.5.1998 and they were informed that on 23.5.1998 at about 5.00 p.m. when Sawaru was going to the house of his relative and when he reached near Tarkulahi Sewan, Sri Ram Vishwakarma, Bali Ram, Dinesh Vishwakarma and Satya Prakash Vishwakarma assaulted him with Lathi and Danda. They public had apprehended and assaulted Sri Ram Vishwakarma who also died. He further deposed that on 27.5.1998 he sent a registered letter to the police but no action was taken. 19. D.W. 2 Rama Sant deposed that on 23.5.1998 at about 5.00 p.m. while he was returning from the house of his relative and reached near Gora Nala, he saw that Sawaru Kewat was being assaulted by Satya Prakash Vishwakarma, Bali Ram Vishwakarma, Sri Ram Vishwakarma and Dinesh Vishwakarma. The cycle of Sawaru was also lying there. He tried to save him but several persons reached there and assailants were chased. Ram Prasad Vishwakarma was apprehended and assaulted by Lathi and Danda. 20. D.W. 3 Jagdish Ram was a record keeper in Gorakhpur Police Office. The cycle of Sawaru was also lying there. He tried to save him but several persons reached there and assailants were chased. Ram Prasad Vishwakarma was apprehended and assaulted by Lathi and Danda. 20. D.W. 3 Jagdish Ram was a record keeper in Gorakhpur Police Office. He deposed that on 5.7.1998 a registered letter No. 2317 Kali Charan son of Nannan Kewat was entered and this registered letter was sent to Circle Officer, Cantt. The number of registered letter was 2317 and it was mentioned at SI. No. 12 of the register. 21. D.W. 4 deposed that on 22.5.1998 marriage of his daughter was fixed. This marriage ceremony was attended by Kali Charan and Shiv Chand Kewat. They had come to his house at 2.00 O’clock on 22.5.1998 and both of them had stayed in his house from 22.5.1998 to 26.5.1998. They left his house on 26.5.1998 because they heard that Sawaru was murdered. 22. The Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on record convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 23. We have heard Shri M.P. Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri A.K. Dwivedi, and Shri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 24. Learned Counsel for the appellant challenged the findings recorded by the trial Court on various grounds. The first submission of the Counsel for the appellants is that no independent witness was produced in this case. It is submitted that P.W. 2 is son of the deceased and P.W. 4 Dinesh Kumar is son-in-law of brother of the deceased Ram Prasad. We have considered the submission and in our opinion there is no substance in this submission. It is a settled position that there is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witness, just because the witnesses are related to the deceased would be no ground to discard their testimony, if otherwise their testimony inspires confidence. Being relatives, it would be their endeavour to see that the real culprits are punished and normally they would not implicate wrong person in the crime, so as to allow the real culprits to escape unpunished. Being relatives, it would be their endeavour to see that the real culprits are punished and normally they would not implicate wrong person in the crime, so as to allow the real culprits to escape unpunished. So far as the submission of non-examination of other witnesses is concerned, mere failure to examine all the witnesses who may have witnessed the occurrence will not result in out right rejection of the prosecution case if the witnesses examined by the prosecution are found to be truthful and reliable. Moreover, we cannot ignore the reality that many eye-witnesses shy away from giving evidence for obvious reasons. In the case of Ravi v. State, (2004) 11 SCC 266 it has been held as under : “It is settled by a catena of cases by this Court that the evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be rejected merely because they are related. In such a situation, the evidence of PW 2 in the present case, there is no strong motive or ill will on the part of PW 2 to exonerate the real person who caused the injuries to her son and to implicate the accused.” 25. According to the prosecution case the independent witnesses were available but they were not examined by the prosecution. It is contended by the Counsel for the appellants that only two eye-witnesses were examined by the prosecution who are close relatives of the deceased therefore their evidence is not sufficient to convict the appellants. It is now well settled that the evidence of witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a related witness or the sole witness, or both, if otherwise the same is found credible. The witness could be a relative but that does not mean to reject his statement in totality. In such a case, it is the paramount duty of the Court to be more careful in the matter of scrutiny of evidence of the interested witness. 26. In the case of Seeman v. State, (2005) 11 SCC 142 , at page 145 the Apex Court had observed that ‘The prosecution’s non-production of one independent witness who has been named in the FIR by itself cannot be taken to be a circumstance to discredit the evidence of the interested witness and disbelieve the prosecution case. 26. In the case of Seeman v. State, (2005) 11 SCC 142 , at page 145 the Apex Court had observed that ‘The prosecution’s non-production of one independent witness who has been named in the FIR by itself cannot be taken to be a circumstance to discredit the evidence of the interested witness and disbelieve the prosecution case. It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the Court to place credence on the statement. 27. In another case of Appabhai v. State of Gujarat reported in 1988 (supp.) SCC 241 the Apex Court has observed as under: “Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The Court therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused. The Court, however, must bear in mind that witnesses to a serious crime may not react in a normal manner. Nor do they react uniformly. The horror-stricken witnesses at a dastardly crime or an act of egregious nature may react differently. Their course of conduct may not be of ordinary type in the normal circumstances. The Court, therefore, cannot reject their evidence merely because they have behaved or reacted in an unusual manner." 28. The Counsel for the appellant also challenged the presence of P.W. 2 on the ground that his father was assaulted in his presence and he did not come forward to protect his father. We do not find any substance in this submission of the Counsel for the appellants. The Counsel for the appellant also challenged the presence of P.W. 2 on the ground that his father was assaulted in his presence and he did not come forward to protect his father. We do not find any substance in this submission of the Counsel for the appellants. It is important to note that appellant and co-accused were armed with knives and in such a situation it was absurd to expect any intervention from him. It is also important to note that in the first information report and in his deposition this fact is mentioned that he was also chased by the assailants and threatened also. It has been held in various decisions of the Apex Court that different people behave and react differently in different situations. Human behaviour varies from person to person. Human behaviour depends upon the facts and circumstances of each given case. How a person would react and behave in a particular situation can never be predicted. Every person who witnesses a serious crime reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counterattacking the assailants. Some may remain tightlipped, overawed either on account of the antecedents of the assailant or threats given by him. Each one reacts in his special way even in similar circumstances, leave alone, the varying nature depending upon a variety of circumstances. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. 29. The testimony of the witnesses cannot be rejected solely on the ground that they are relative or interested witnesses. The testimony of P.W. 2 shows that he was trying to save his father but he was also chased and threatened by the accused persons. In the first information report this fact was also mentioned that when P.W. 2 Satya Prakash was trying to come forward to save his father he was also chased by Sawaru and Shiv Chand Kewat and they had extended threats also. In the first information report this fact was also mentioned that when P.W. 2 Satya Prakash was trying to come forward to save his father he was also chased by Sawaru and Shiv Chand Kewat and they had extended threats also. In such circumstances it was not possible for P.W. 2 to save his father from the assailants who was carrying knives. P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 explained their presence at the time of occurrence. P.W. 1 stated that he met his father in the market and enquired from him as to why he has come to the market and he disclosed the reason for coming to market and thereafter he followed his father. Similarly P.W. 4 stated that he came to Tarkulahi and when he was at a distance of 100-150 paces from the place of incident, he heard shrieks, villagers and Sawaru and Shiva Chand were running away and Sawaru was apprehended by the villagers. In these circumstances there is nothing on the record to create doubt about the presence of the two witnesses at the alleged time. 30. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant had no motive to commit the offence. It is mentioned that there was enmity with regard to a passage of the house between the accused and the deceased and a case was also filed. The accused had denied in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the allegation of litigation with regard to Rasta. He stated that on account of enmity he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of direct evidence and motive does not play any important role. 31. Learned Counsel for the appellant next submitted that the testimony of the defence witness shows that in fact the deceased was assaulted by the villagers when he was apprehended while he was assaulting Sawaru and appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. In support of this version testimony of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 is to be considered and the version given by them is plausible. The other defence witnesses are D.W. 3 Jagdish Ram and D.W. 4 Subhash. D.W. 4 Subhash has supported the plea of alibi of the appellant. In support of this version testimony of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 is to be considered and the version given by them is plausible. The other defence witnesses are D.W. 3 Jagdish Ram and D.W. 4 Subhash. D.W. 4 Subhash has supported the plea of alibi of the appellant. The testimony of P.W. 2 Ramasant supported the defence version that Ram Prasad deceased was beaten by passersby and cattle grazers by Lathi and Danda and he died on account of these injuries. His statement is conflicting with the post-mortem examination of deceased Ram Prasad. The doctor found all these injuries in the form of incised wound. It is established by the ante-mortem injuries of deceased Ram Prasad Vishwakarma that no injury by Lathi and Danda was found on the person of the deceased. Thus, the statement of D.W. 2 that deceased was assaulted by Lathi and Danda is not reliable. D.W. 1 Kali Charan has supported the plea of alibi of the appellant. It is important to note that in the absence of any statement of appellant about his plea of alibi, the statement of D.W. 1 Kali Charan is of no help to him. The defence has also proved an application dated 27.5.1998 moved by D.W. 1 Kali Charan to S.S.P., Gorakhpur regarding the manner of incident of murder. D.W. 3 Jagdish Ram was a record keeper. It is established that he got prepared the application through an advocate and sent through registered post which is letter No. 2317. 32. The appellant did not suggest the witnesses that at the alleged time he was not present at the place of occurrence. He even did not mention in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. about his plea of alibi. His plea of alibi cannot be accepted and the Sessions Judge had also rightly rejected the plea of alibi. 33. We have carefully examined the evidence on record. P.W. 2 Satya Prakash Vishwarkarma and P.W. 4 Dinesh Kumar are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 2 Satya Prakash Vishwakarma had explained his presence. He deposed that on 23.5.1998 he had gone to the market Jhanga for purchasing some articles and there he met his father Ram Prasad Vishwakarma deceased. After purchasing medicines he followed his father about 10-15 paces behind him who was also going on another cycle. P.W. 2 Satya Prakash Vishwakarma had explained his presence. He deposed that on 23.5.1998 he had gone to the market Jhanga for purchasing some articles and there he met his father Ram Prasad Vishwakarma deceased. After purchasing medicines he followed his father about 10-15 paces behind him who was also going on another cycle. When his father reached near the filed of Panchu Yadava of village Uchhgaon appellant Shiv Chand Kewat and co-accused Sawaru who were armed with knives met his father, both of them gave knives blows to him and when he rushed to intervene he was also threatened and on that account he had to run away after raising alarm. Villagers and cattle grazers chased the accused. Shiv Chand managed to run away on his cycle but Sawaru was apprehended and he was given beating by the villagers. P.W. 4 Dinesh Kumar corroborated the testimony of P.W. 2 Satya Prakash Vishwarkarma. He deposed that at the time of incident when he was at a distance of 100-150 paces from the spot he heard shrieks of Satya Prakash and villagers and saw that Sawaru and Shiv Chand were running away and Sawaru was apprehended whereas Shiv Chand managed to escape. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence and in our opinion the testimonies of both the witnesses are credible and trustworthy. Both the witnesses were extensively cross-examined but nothing could be elucidated to discredit their testimonies. The eye-witness account finds corroboration from the post-mortem report. The autopsy on the dead-body of Ram Prasad Vishwakarama was conducted by P.W. 3 Dr. O.N. Gupta. He found six incised wounds and in his opinion injuries were possible by knife and death could be at 5 p.m on 23.5.1998. In our opinion the eye-witness account is fully corroborated by the medical evidence available on the record. The occurrence took place on 23.5.1998 at 5 p.m. and the prosecution has proved that report of the occurrence was lodged at 7.20 p.m. the distance of the police station was 10 km. The first information report contains all the necessary details and specific role of the appellant, motive of the crime and the weapons in the hands of the assailants. The prompt lodging of the report also eliminates the chances of embellishment. 34. The first information report contains all the necessary details and specific role of the appellant, motive of the crime and the weapons in the hands of the assailants. The prompt lodging of the report also eliminates the chances of embellishment. 34. Considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record we are of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Sessions Judge has rightly recorded the findings of conviction against the appellant Shiv Chand Kewat and we also concur with the same. 35. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentences of the appellant Shiv Chand Kewat awarded by the trial Court is affirmed. He is in jail. He shall be kept there to serve out the sentences awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by us. 36. Office is directed to communicate this order within 15 days from today to the concerned Court for information. ————