JUDGMENT H.S. Shalla, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11/13.2.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-; in default thereof, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellant was convicted under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-; in default thereof, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellant was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution machinery was set into motion at the instance complainant Gopal Dass Bhatia (PW-6), who lost his son Gurcharan at the hands of the present appellant on account of the marriage, which was solemnized between Gurcharan Singh (deceased) and his sister Jasbir Kaur on 18.11.1998. It was a love marriage. The accused who is the brother of Jasbir Kaur was not happy with this inter caste marriage as the deceased belonged to scheduled caste being Balmiki, whereas the girl belonged to higher caste therefore, he had been nourishing a grudge in his mind. On 29.11.1999 at about 6.00 P.M. complainant returned home from his office and his daughter-in-law Jasbir Kaur told him that her brother Kulbir Singh had come and her husband Gurcharan Singh, along with his friends, had gone with him to the market for making purchases. Thereafter, complainant was returning from the market of sector 7 Chandigarh after purchasing some items for the guests and when he reached near the block of houses 1769 to 1774 at about 7.00 P.M., a red coloured Royal-Enfield motorcycle crossed him. He saw that his son Gurcharan Singh was driving that motorcycle and accused Kulbir Singh was the pillion rider sitting behind him. All of a sudden, he heard the sound like bursting of a cracker. The Motor-cycle fell down towards the right side of the, road. He saw that his son Gurcharan Singh was driving that motorcycle and accused Kulbir Singh was the pillion rider sitting behind him. All of a sudden, he heard the sound like bursting of a cracker. The Motor-cycle fell down towards the right side of the, road. Accused Kulbir Singh jumped away from it. Deceased Gurcharan Singh fell down on the ground with the motorcycle. The accused took out an empty from the pistol he was holding, reloaded the pistol with live cartridges and fired a shot at the deceased, who was lying on the ground. The accused along with pistol fled away towards government school on foot. The complainant raised an alarm and started picking up the deceased. Gurcharan Singh died on the spot. Police party, headed by Inspector/Station House Officer, P.S.Malik (PW-19) while on patrol duty, reached the spot and the complainant suffered statement, Ex. PO, narrating the entire occurrence and on the basis of his statement, Ex. PD/1, formal F,IR, Ex. PD/2, was registered. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan with correct marginal notes. From there, he took in possession the motor cycle and one empty of a .12 bore cartridges. He lifted the blood stained earth and grass from the place, where the dead body was lying, prepared the inquest report, Ex. PT/2, and the dead body, which was identified by complainant Gopal Dass Bhatia, was sent to General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh for post mortem examination. At about 7.15 P.M. the Investigating Officer received a message through control room that the person, who had committed the murder, had been apprehended at A.P. Chowk. After completing the proceedings on the spot, he went to that place. Head Constable Mohan Lal and Head Constable Dhanna Singh produced the accused before him along with pistol, Ex. P-1, along with five live cartridges and one empty cartridge, which was in the barrel of the pistol. The arm and ammunition were taken into possession and the accused was arrested after preparing search memo Ex. PZ. Autopsy was conducted by a Board of doctors, including Dr. Ritu Sood (PW-16) and after completing other necessary formalities, accused was sent up for trial. 4. Accused was charge sheeted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The arm and ammunition were taken into possession and the accused was arrested after preparing search memo Ex. PZ. Autopsy was conducted by a Board of doctors, including Dr. Ritu Sood (PW-16) and after completing other necessary formalities, accused was sent up for trial. 4. Accused was charge sheeted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also charge-sheeted under Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also under Section 25 of the Arms Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P. Siddambary, Junior Scientifc Officer, CFSL (PW-1), Dr. Rajesh Biswas (PW-2), Constable Rajesh Kumar (PW-3), Constable Yashpal (PW-4), Constable Dhanvir (PW-5), Gopal Dass Bhatia, complainant (PW-6), Head Constable Onkar Singh (PW-7), Jai Kishan (PW-8), Head Constable Yashpal (PW-9), Head Constable Sukhwinder Singh (PW-10), Head Constable Mohinder Pal, MHC (PW-11), Shri A.K.Bishnoi, CJM, Karnal (PW-12), Assistant Sub Inspector Mohan Lal (PW-13), Head Constable Dhanna Singh (PW-14), Head Constable Ranpal Singh (PW-15), Dr. Ritu Sood (PW-16), R.C.Sheoran (PW-17), Assistant Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar (PW-18), Inspector P.S.Malik, the Investigating Officer (PW-19), Constable Kartar Singh (PW-20) and Sushil Kumar (PW-21). The accused opted to produce evidence in his defence. Accused got examined Constable Arun Kumar as DW-1, Navjeet Singh Brar as DW-2 and ASI Kamal Dev, Record Keeper as DW-3. 6. In his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the prosecution allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He further disclosed that even the only eye witness Gopal Dass Bhatia is stated to be television official that he did not see any occurrence and the police from P .S. Sector 26, Chandigarh, has come to his residence and took him to the police station stating that his son was injured. This is clear that there is no eye witness to the alleged crime. Case has been planted upon him falsely. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case minutely. 8. This is clear that there is no eye witness to the alleged crime. Case has been planted upon him falsely. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case minutely. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the shoulder of the interested witness, i.e., Gopal Dass Bhatia, father of the deceased, who was examined as PW-6 and since the entire ocular version is the result of the interestedness, the case of the prosecution is liable to be thrown out only on this short ground. 9. We have considered this contention of the learned defence counsel and for the reasons to be recorded by us hereinafter, the same is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection since it is well settled law that there is no absolute rule that the evidence of relative or partisan witness should not be believed at all. Simply because the witness is relative of the deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded on that ground alone, but should be received with great care, caution and after due scrutiny. In Bhupendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1968 SC 1438, their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that the fact that the prosecution witnesses in a murder trial were the sons and daughters of the victim, does not detract from the value to be attached to their evidence because naturally enough they are interested in seeing that the real murderer of their father is convicted of the offence and they could not be expected to adopt a course by which some innocent person would be substituted for the person really guilty of the murder. In fact, their feelings would be strongest against the real culprit. As such, their evidence cannot be discarded on the ground of their relation with the deceased. Similar view was taken in Barati Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 839 and Mst. Dalbir Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472. 10. Now we would like to examine the ocular account of the occurrence and for this purpose, we would like to lay our hands on the statement of Gopal Dass Bhatia (PW-6). Similar view was taken in Barati Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 839 and Mst. Dalbir Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472. 10. Now we would like to examine the ocular account of the occurrence and for this purpose, we would like to lay our hands on the statement of Gopal Dass Bhatia (PW-6). After having gone through his statement find that the same inspires confidence and even during the course of cross-examination, nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of defence. He has categorically deposed that he had seen the accused sitting behind the motorcycle, which was being driven by his son Gurcharan Singh. He has also categorically deposed that he saw the accused firing shots at the deceased with his pistol, Ex. P-1, from close range and after the occurrence, the accused fled away from the spot with his weapon and he raised an alarm and in the meantime, his son Gurcharan Singh succumbed to the injuries suffered by him by fire-arm. This witness immediately after the occurrence, reported the matter to the police through his statement, Ex. PO, which was recorded by Inspector P.S. Malik (PW-19), who was there on patrol duty. Formal FIR was recorded promptly at the Police Station (East), Chandigarh at 8.10 P.M., whereas occurrence took place, as per this witness, at about 7.15 P.M. In such like circumstances the First Information Report cannot be doubted in any manner and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly relied upon the First Information Report as a corroborative piece of evidence. We also find that the name of the accused forms part of the First Information Report. Accused was related to the deceased and the complainant and the question of identity does not arise. The statement of Gopal Dass Bhatia (PW-6) is further corroborated through the mouth of Assistant Sub Inspector Mohan Lal (PW-13) and Head Constable Dhanna Singh (PW­ 14), who were on traffic duty at the relevant time on the crossing and in fact, these two witnesses apprehended the accused near the divider of Sectors 18-19, while he was going on a rickshaw. On an inquiry, he disclosed his name as Kulbir Singh and on his personal search, pistol, Ex. P1, along with five live cartridges was recovered from his possession. Inspector P.S. Malik, (PW-19), when reached at the spot, he unloaded the pistol, Ex. On an inquiry, he disclosed his name as Kulbir Singh and on his personal search, pistol, Ex. P1, along with five live cartridges was recovered from his possession. Inspector P.S. Malik, (PW-19), when reached at the spot, he unloaded the pistol, Ex. P1, and one empty was taken out of the pistol and he took into possession all the articles through recovery memo Ex. PG. The report of the Forensic Science laboratory has further advanced the case of the prosecution. As per report, Ex. PA, shots were fired from pistol, Ex. P-1 and it is further disclosed in the report that they could not have been fired through any other fire arm. The pellets and wads recovered out of the wound caused on the person of the deceased were found to be the components of shot gun cartridges. The statement of Dr. Ritu Sood (PW­ 16) further pointed out towards the guilt of the accused and after having gone through her statement, we find that she has categorically deposed that the lacerated wounds found on the occipital region of the deceased and on the chin, were having inverted margins. Brain matter was also coming out of the wound and this showed that the injuries were caused by a fire arm from a close range. This witness further clarified that the possibility of firing from a .12 bore cartridges from a close range could not be ruled out. The pellets and wads recovered from the wound were fired from pistol Ex. P-1. All this proves on record beyond doubt that it was the accused, who fired from a close range with pistol Ex. P 1 two shots at the deceased as a result of which, he died at the spot. Moreover, Gopal Dass Bhatia (PW-6) has categorically deposed that he belonged to Balmiki caste, which was a scheduled caste, whereas accused belonged to Jat community, which was a non-scheduled caste. He further testified that accused’s sister Jasbir Kaur had married deceased Gurcharan Singh alias Guru, who was his son and it was an inter caste marriage. On account of this, accused was having a grudge against the accused, who was not happy with the marriage and in order to take revenge, he has committed, the murder of the deceased as above. We are conscious of the fact that a strong motive has been provided by the prosecution for committing the crime. On account of this, accused was having a grudge against the accused, who was not happy with the marriage and in order to take revenge, he has committed, the murder of the deceased as above. We are conscious of the fact that a strong motive has been provided by the prosecution for committing the crime. We find that the version contained in the First Information Report, EX.PD/2 has not been changed by Gopal Dass Bhatia, the eye witness to the occurrence, who stepped into the witness box as PW-6, in any manner. Moreover, it is neither obligatory nor incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove the motive, but it it can provide to the Court for appreciation of the evidence, this would be an 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 offence, it depends upon the sensitivity of an independent how to react to a particular situation and in the instant case, it has been established on the record beyond reasonable doubt that the marriage solemnised between the sister of the accused-appellant and Gurcharan Singh (deceased) was a love marriage, which was not liked by the accused since the deceased belonged to Balmiki caste, whereas accused belonged to Jat community. It was an inter caste marriage. In order to take revenge, accused-appellant committed the murder of Gurcharan Singh with pistol, Ex. P-1. The motive in every case is not the deciding factor, particularly when direct evidence against the appellant is available. We would like to observe that the absence of motive does not speak of the innocence of the appellant, where there is direct evidence of an acceptable nature regarding the commission of an offence. In such like circumstances, motive cannot loom large in the mind of the court. The accused-appellant has not been able to produce any licence for keeping in possession of the pistol, Ex. P-1. In such like circumstances, motive cannot loom large in the mind of the court. The accused-appellant has not been able to produce any licence for keeping in possession of the pistol, Ex. P-1. along with cartridges and the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly observed that since pistol and the cartridges were recovered from his conscious possession as deposed by Assistant Sub Inspector Mohan Lal (PW-13), Head Constable Dhanna Singh (PW-14), therefore, he had committed an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Faced with this situation, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that recovery of pistol, Ex. P-1, which is allegedly the weapon of offence, is very much doubtful as no reliance can be placed on the statements of Assistant Sub Inspector Mohan Lal (PW 13) and Head Constable Dhanna Singh (PW-14), who were alleged to have recovered it from the accused, on account of the discrepancies occurred in their statements and other documentary evidence on the file. 11. We have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, but the same does not cut any ice with us. No doubt, we find from the testimony of these two witnesses, namely, Assistant Sub Inspector Mohan Lal (PW-13) and Head Constable Dhanna Singh (PW-14), that some discrepancies with regard to the timing of the duty appearing in the evidence, but at the same time, it proves on record that the accused was apprehended by them immediately after the occurrence at A.P. Chowk. Moreover, OOR No.32 dated 29.11.1999 clearly spells out that Assistant Sub Inspector Mohan Lal (PW-13) was on duty at A.P. Chowk. The entry Ex. PN has also proved this fact that Head Constable Dhanna Singh (PW-14), was on duty on ambulance No.4, therefore, the presence of these two witnesses is established at A P. Chowk at the time when they apprehended the accused and recovered pistol Ex. P-1 and there is nothing on the record to disbelieve the sworn testimony of these witnesses, which inspire confidence. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of the witnesses if they depose before the Court truthfully after a lapse of time since the human memory fades away with the passage of time. They are not to be taken into consideration by the Court if they do not materially affect the case of the prosecution. 12. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of the witnesses if they depose before the Court truthfully after a lapse of time since the human memory fades away with the passage of time. They are not to be taken into consideration by the Court if they do not materially affect the case of the prosecution. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that keeping in view the cassette, Ex. D4 and the transcription of the film contained therein as Ex. D-3 that Gopal Dass Bhatia (PW-6) is not the witness to the occurrence, particularly when he admitted in his interview filmed in the cassette, Ex. D4, that he had not seen the assailant, but this contention of the learned counsel is liable to be rejected since we find that the testimony of Gopal Dass Bhatia (PW-6) has not been contradicted by any document or medical evidence. Affidavit, Ex. OA, alleged to have been executed by this witness and proved in the testimony of Navjeet Singh Brar (DW-2) as also the conversation contained in Ex. D4 the transcription of which is Ex. D3 do not cause any dent in the sworn testimony of Gopal Dass Bhatia (PW-6). Statement Ex. PD was suffered by this witness immediately after the occurrence had taken place and on the basis of which, FIR was registered promptly. Therefore, it is not possible to believe that this witness, who wanted to bring to the book real culprit on the very next day morning and thereafter as reflected in Ex. D-3 and Ex. D-4, would state that he did not know who has murdered his son ‘and it was the police, who has taken him to the police station and told him about the occurrence. Gopal Dass Bhatia (PW-6) has rightly explained that whatever he had spoken before this Navjeet Singh Brar (DW-2) that was stated by him at the first instance, as he was making some video film. He has categorically denied to have stated that he had been telling in the markets of Sectors 7 and 26 that he had been wrongly cited as eye witness to the occurrence. This video film could not, in any manner, contradict his statement reflected in Ex. PO, particularly when the life of his son was cut short. He has categorically denied to have stated that he had been telling in the markets of Sectors 7 and 26 that he had been wrongly cited as eye witness to the occurrence. This video film could not, in any manner, contradict his statement reflected in Ex. PO, particularly when the life of his son was cut short. It appears that Navjeet Singh Brar (DW-2) on the pretext of reflecting him in a film being prepared by him made him speak in the way he liked to gain popularity and that is why, he also procured an affidavit EX.OA from Gopal Dass Bhatia (PW-6) and moreover, if there had been any truth in Ex. D-3 and Ex. D-4, the question of procuring affidavit, Ex. DA, from the complainant would not arise. It appears that due to some hidden motive, a false evidence was created later on so as to demolish the case of the prosecution. The possibility of Navjeet Singh Brar (DW-2), who prepared the film, joining hands with the accused party cannot be ruled out and moreover, the factum of committing suicide by Jasbir Kaur, who was the wife of the deceased and daughter-in-law of the complainant, on the next day, cannot be ignored and the complainant having lost his son and daughter-in-law one after another, must have lost his balance of mind and in such like circumstances, he might have suffered a statement alleged to have been made by him before Navjeet Singh Brar (DW-2) on that date. The committing of suicide by Jasbir Kaur is proved on the record through the mouth of Shri A.K. Bishnoi, CJM, Karnal (PW-12), who has recorded dying declaration as Ex. PO/4, wherein she, in her statement, has stated that she had committed suicide after she came to know that her brother had committed the murder of her husband. We are conscious of the fact that this statement is not admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, but at the same time, it can be referred to so as to render the version as reflected in Ex. D-3 and Ex. D-4, to be doubtful. Moreover, on the basis of affidavit, Ex. DA, case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out and there is nothing on the record to disbelieve the sworn testimony of Gopal Dass Bhatia (PW-6). D-3 and Ex. D-4, to be doubtful. Moreover, on the basis of affidavit, Ex. DA, case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out and there is nothing on the record to disbelieve the sworn testimony of Gopal Dass Bhatia (PW-6). There was hardly any scope for false implication within a short span of time. The police immediately after within one hour of the occurrence, registered the FIR wherein only the name of the accused figured. The complainant would not substitute the real culprit and rather, it would be his endeavour to name culprit, who has committed the murder of his son. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while referring to the statement of Gopal Dass Bhatia (PW-6), has further argued that the accused had fired second shot from a close range, but neither the pellet nor the wads were recovered from that wound, therefore, the entire version of the occurrence becomes doubtful, is again liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. It is well settled law that the eye witness is not expected to give exact location of injury having been caused with a fire arm, which proved fatal and the description of the location of the fire arm injury might not be accurate, but that by itself would not create a ring of doubt in the testimony of the eye witness. In the instant case merely because from the second wound, no pellet or wads were recovered, it does not render the case of the prosecution doubtful, particularly in view of the medical evidence put forward by the prosecution through the mouth of Dr. Ritu Sood (PW-16). 14. In the light of the evidence and reasons recorded above, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal filed by the appellant fails and is dismissed. Accordingly, conviction and sentence awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh is affirmed. —————————