JUDGMENT H.S. Bhalla, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.12.1997 22.12.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide which he convicted Baljit Singh and Suresh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/­ each and in default thereof; they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each. However, accused Om Parkash had died during the pendency of the trial, whereas accused Chandi Ram, Sanjay and Rajinder have been acquitted of the charges framed against them. 2. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under:­ Balwant Singh (deceased) used to sell liquor in his village Kanwari and Om Parkash accused was his regular customer. Om Parkash, in order to purchase liquor, went to the house of Om Parkash at 8/9 P.M. During that time, Balwant Singh was present in his house. Om Parkash asked the wife of Balwant Singh to give him a bottle of liquor. Meanwhile, Balwant Singh reached there. He showed his dissatisfaction on account of demanding liquor from his wife in his absence. Hot words were exchanged between them. However, Om Parkash went to his house, but on the next day, Om Parkash again picked up a quarrel with Balwant Singh for having objected to purchase liquor from Balwant Singh’s wife, which led to an altercation between the two. However, Dariya Singh intervened and resultantly, at that time, both of them went to their respective houses. Subsequently Balwant Singh left the village and started residing at village Singhwa for the time being. 3. It has been alleged that about three months prior to the present occurrence, Balwant Singh came back to his village Kanwari. On 5.7.1995 at about 6.00 A.M. Balwant Singh was going to answer the call of nature. He was being followed by Dariya Singh, Om Parkash and Miss Mukesh (daughter of Om Parkash). When Balwant Singh reached in front of the house of Nawab Ali, accused Om Parkash armed with a ballam, Baljit armed with a Kulhari and Suresh armed with a Pharsa, came out of the house owned by the Panchayat. Om Parkash inflicted a ballam blow, which hit fore-head of Balwant Singh, whereas Baljit and Suresh gave kulhari and pharsa blows respectively on the head of Balwant Singh. Om Parkash inflicted a ballam blow, which hit fore-head of Balwant Singh, whereas Baljit and Suresh gave kulhari and pharsa blows respectively on the head of Balwant Singh. On account of injuries sustained by him, Balwant Singh fell down on the ground. Om Parkash accused again gave a ballam blow on the back side of the head of Balwant Singh. Baljit Singh twisted the left hand of Balwant Singh. Then Dariya Singh and others raised an alarm. On hearing the alarm, all the accused sped away with their respective weapons and thereafter, Dariya Singh and others arranged for a vehicle and removed the injured to the Civil Hospital, Hansi, where he was declared dead. 4. On receipt of a ruqa, Ex. PN/3, sent by the doctor attending on the injured, ASI, Ami Lal, visited the hospital and recorded the statement, Ex. PJ, of Dariya Singh. He made his endorsement, Ex. PJ/2 thereon and sent the same to the Police Station, on the basis of which, a formal FIR, Ex. PJ/1, was recorded. Thereafter, ASI, Ami Lal, prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. After completing necessary formalities, accused were challaned and sent up for trial. 5. Accused were charge-sheeted under Section 302 read with Sections 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed a trial. 6. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Amrik Singh (PW-1), Jai Parkash (PW-2), Attar Singh, Head Constable (PW-3), Shamsher Singh, Draftsman (PW-4), Sadhu Ram, ASI (PW­ 5), Mange Ram, Constable (PW-6), Rameshwar Dass (PW-7), Dr. Urmil Dhattarwal (PW-8), Dariya Singh (PW-9), Om Parkash (PW-10) and Ami Lal, ASI, (PW-11), the Investigating Officer of this case. 7. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the prosecution allegations. They pleaded that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by Dariya Singh in connivance with the police. In defence, they have produced Pohlu Ram as DW-1. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case minutely. 9. They pleaded that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by Dariya Singh in connivance with the police. In defence, they have produced Pohlu Ram as DW-1. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case minutely. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that no strong motive has been provided by the prosecution for committing the murder of Balwant Singh and just because of the fact that an altercation took place, is not such a motive for the commission of the crime and finally, he prayed that on this short ground alone, the case of the prosecution is liable to be thrown out. 10. We have considered this contention of the learned defence counsel, but for the reason’s recorded by us hereinafter, the same is liable to be rejected and the accused are not entitled to acquittal merely on this short ground alone. 11. It is proved on record that when accused Om Parkash demanded liquor from the wife of Balwant Singh, he objected to this later on and they had scuffle on this issue. Balwant Singh left the village temporarily to earn his livelihood and then he again returned to the village three months prior to the present occurrence. It is true that incident of demand of liquor from the wife of Balwant Singh took place three months prior to the occurrence and on account of this, the crime in the manner in which it has been put forward, was not required to be committed, but at the same time, we are of the opinion that motive is state of mind of the culprit and this element exclusively remains hidden in it and specially when it sprouts for the commission of offence that cannot be judged precisely. It is neither obligatory 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 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 the offence. 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. However, in this case, it is proved that earlier some dispute took place between the deceased and accused Om Parkash and when the ocular account is available the motive loses its importance and in such like circumstances the absence of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case. 12. As regards the FIR, the learned defence counsel attacked this document on the ground that delay itself is sufficient for drawing an inference of concoction and therefore, the whole investigation is suspect, but even this contention of the learned defence counsel does not cut ice with us. In this case, occurrence took place on 5.7.1995 at 6.00 A.M. as stated by Daria Singh (PW-9) and Om Parkash (PW-10). Thereafter, they took Balwant Singh to Civil Hospital, Hansi, and the doctor sent a ruqa, Ex. PN/3, at 8.15 A.M. to the Station House Officer, Police Station City, Hansi, intimating him about the arrival of injured Balwant Singh ASI Ami Lal reached the hospital at 9.30 A.M., but he did not record the statements of the witnesses, who were present in the hospital till 1.15 P.M. and he started preparing inquest report at about 1.15 per and recorded the statement of Dariya Singh before preparing inquest report. It is true that ASI Ami Lal failed to explain as to why he took such a long time in starting the proceedings and if there was any Iapse on the part of the Investigating Officer that cannot be fatal to the entire case of the prosecution and the version of the eye witnesses in such like circumstances cannot be looked upon with suspicion. Moreover the police machinery was set into motion at the earliest and there is nothing to suggest that the case was registered with due deliberations and consultations when ruqa had been sent promptly by the Medical Officer to the police, it is not the duty of the prosecution witnesses to inform the police and lodge an FIR. In this manner there is no delay in lodging the FIR\Moreover, Dariya Singh (PW-9) and Om Parkash (PW-10) must be deeply shocked on account of the occurrence and concern of both of them would be to look after Balwant Singh and it was not expected for them to go to the police station for lodging a report. Moreover, it is well settled that FIR is not a substantive evidence, but can only be used to corroborate or contradict the evidence of the informer given in the court or to impeach his credence. We further find from the statement of the Investigating Officer of this case that the genuineness of the FIR was not challenged during the course of cross-examination. There is no suggestion put to the Investigating Officer that the fabricated the document and therefore in such like circumstances, delay, if any, in recording the FIR loses its importance, particularly when, as already discussed above, information was sent by the Medical Officer at the earliest. 13. The contention of the learned defence counsel that material witnesses have not been produced and in case they had been produced, they would not have supported the prosecution case is again liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. Since we find that as per version of Dariya Singh (PW-9) and Om Parkash (PW-10), incident took place in front of the house of Nawab Ali and accused, namely, Om Parkash, Baljit and Suresh participated in the occurrence and they inflicted injuries to Balwant Singh with their respective weapons. It is true that Parmeshwari Devi wife of Balwant Singh deceased implicated three more persons, namely, Chandi, Sanjay and Rajinder and stated that they had also inflicted injuries to Balwant Singh and dragged him upto a culvert. The said Parmeshwari and Satish who stated the above said facts to the Investigating Officer have not been produced as witnesses in the Court. The said Parmeshwari and Satish who stated the above said facts to the Investigating Officer have not been produced as witnesses in the Court. No marks of dragging were found on the dead body nor were there any trail of blood in between the place of occurrence, i.e., in front of the house of Nawab Ali and the place where the dead body of Balwant Singh was left, as stated by Parmeshwari Devi and Satish. 14. Pohlu Ram (DW-1) has stated that he had seen the dead body of Balwant Singh lying near the culvert and the police had taken the dead body to the Civil Hospital. Statement of Pohlu Ram (DW-I) stands belied from the statement of Ami Lal, ASI, who has stated that he had gone to the Civil Hospital on receipt of a ruqa, Ex. PN/3. His statement stands corroborated from ruqa Ex. PN/3, wherein it has been mentioned that Balwant Singh was brought to Civil Hospital by Dariya Singh and others. Therefore, the version to the effect that the deceased was dragged to culvert and the dead body was taken away from that place, stands belied from the statement of Ami Lal, ASI, who had stated that he had gone to Civil Hospital on receipt of ruqa Ex. PN/3. His statement stands corroborated from this ruqa wherein it has been mentioned that Balwant Singh was brought to Civil Hospital by Dariya Singh and others. Therefore, the version to the effect that the deceased was dragged to culvert and the dead body was taken away from that place is not liable to be accepted in view of ruqa, Ex. PN/3 as well as considering the statement of ASI Ami Lal himself. Moreover, Dariya Singh has categorically deposed that Parmeshwari Devi and Satish have not witnessed the occurrence and in view of this, we find that the best piece of evidence, as pointed out by the learned defence counsel, was not withheld by the prosecution in any manner. 15. The ocular version has been provided in this case by Dariya Singh (PW-9) and Om Parkash (PW-10) and they have deposed in a similar fashion and have corroborated their statements with each other. Both the witnesses have disclosed that they and Miss Mukesh were following Balwant Singh and had seen the occurrence when Balwant Singh was in front of the house of Nawab Ali. Both the witnesses have disclosed that they and Miss Mukesh were following Balwant Singh and had seen the occurrence when Balwant Singh was in front of the house of Nawab Ali. Om Parkash accused, Baljit, and Suresh came out of the house owned by Panchayat and they started inflicting injuries to Balvvant Singh with their respective weapons. They have deposed that accused Om Parkash gave a ballam blow on the forehead of Balwant Singh; Baljit Singh gave a kulhari blow and Suresh gave a pharsa blow on the head of Balwant Singh. On receipt of these injuries, Balwant Singh fell down. Thereafter, Om Parkash accused gave another blow of ballam on the back side of the head of Balwant Singh, whereas Baljit Singh accused twisted the hand of Balwant Singh. The statements of these witnesses are further corroborated from the medical evidence, i.e., post mortem report, Ex. PN. Dr. Urmila Dhattarwal found six injuries on the person of Balwant Singh. Injury No.1 was an incised wound on the right side of the forehead, injury No. 2 was an incised wound on the right anterior parietal region and injury No. 3 was a lacerated wound on the right posterior parental region. Thus, there were three injuries on the head of Balwant Singh. Out of them, two were incised wound and one was lacerated wound. No doubt, as per version of Dariya Singh and Om Parkash PWs, four injuries were inflicted on the head, but we cannot lose sight of this fact that occurrence was seen by the witnesses from a distance. There is possibility that the witnesses had seen the swing of the arm in the air and they might not have seen where the weapon actually hit. Therefore, this minor variation is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. That apart, minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses are bound to occur when the witnesses depose in the Court truthfully after a span of period and in this manner, undoubtedly, human memory fades away with the passage of time and therefore, they do not go to the root of the prosecution case. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has strongly argued that no reliance can be placed on the statements of the witnesses, namely, Dariya Singh (PW-9) and Om Parkash (F\’\/­ 10). 16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has strongly argued that no reliance can be placed on the statements of the witnesses, namely, Dariya Singh (PW-9) and Om Parkash (F\’\/­ 10). Since Dariya Singh (PW-9) is real brother of the deceased, whereas Om Parkash (P\N-10) is the nephew of deceased Balwant Singh as they being related to the deceased are interest witnesses. 17. It is well settled law that there is no absolute rule that the evidence of relative of partisan witness should not be believed at all. Simply because the witness is the brother of the deceased his evidence cannot be discarded on that ground alone, but it should be received with great care, caution and after due scrutiny. The evidence clearly spells out that the occurrence took place in the presence of Dariya Singh (PW-9), the brother of the deceased and Om Parkash (PW-10), the nephew of the deceased. Balwant Singh deceased was going to ease himself at 6.00 A.M. on 5.7.1995. He was also being followed by the aforesaid witnesses at that relevant time and in such like circumstances, the presence of these witnesses at the place of occurrence was quite natural. Their testimony in this regard inspires confidence. 18. 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 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 they could not be expected to adopt a course by which some innocent persons 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. (to be checked) 19. It is further proved on record that all the three accused, namely, Om Parkash (expired) Baljit and Suresh were armed which deadly weapons; they came together at the scene of occurrence and on seeing Balwant Singh, they started inflicting. Dalbir Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472. (to be checked) 19. It is further proved on record that all the three accused, namely, Om Parkash (expired) Baljit and Suresh were armed which deadly weapons; they came together at the scene of occurrence and on seeing Balwant Singh, they started inflicting. In means instantaneously, meaning thereby that they all had common intention to kill him and all of a sudden, they appeared when they had concealed themselves in a house owned by the Panchayat. The evidence clearly spells out that the accused, above named, had common intention to cause the death of Balwant Singh and on account of the injuries suffered at the hands of these accused, the life of Balwant Singh was cut short. Looking the case from every angle, we are of the view that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellants. The inevitable result is that appeal filed by the appellants fails and is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar is hereby affirmed. ————————