JUDGMENT H.S. Bhalla, J.:- The demand for dowry of money from the parents of the bride, has increased in the last few years and in the instant case, the husband has gone to the extent of killing his wife inside the privacy of a house and it is the duty of the Court while presiding over a criminal trial to see that no innocent man is punished, but at the same time, the Court is to see that a guilty man does not escape. 2. The appellant has knocked the door of this court against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar by virtue of which, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default thereof, he was directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. However, accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under:- Narinder Kaur deceased daughter of Ajit Singh was married to Kewal Singh about five years before the occurrence. Out of this wedlock, they were blessed with one male issue. Kewal Singh was working at Bhopal as a Welder. Ajit Singh, being a poor person, had given no dowry at the time of marriage. About one and half months before the occurrence, Kewal Singh had come to his village Khela from Bhopal. He had asked Narinder Kaur to bring more dowry from her parental house as no dowry had been given at the time of marriage, otherwise she would be left at her parental house. About one month prior to the occurrence, she alone came to her parental house and started weeping. On inquiry, she disclosed that the accused wanted dowry, otherwise she would be killed. Ajit Singh and his son Mangal Singh had decided to provide dowry articles according to their capacity. She was sent back to the house of the accused with an assurance that dowry articles will be sent within 3-4 days. On inquiry, she disclosed that the accused wanted dowry, otherwise she would be killed. Ajit Singh and his son Mangal Singh had decided to provide dowry articles according to their capacity. She was sent back to the house of the accused with an assurance that dowry articles will be sent within 3-4 days. On this assurance, she went back and thereafter, a double bed, four chairs, a table, a box (Peti), utensils and clothes were purchased and the same were left at the house of the accused by Mangal Singh in the Peter Rehra of Daljit Singh alias Kala. Deceased at that time had told Mangal Singh that the accused wanted cash payment of Rs.10,000/- as he was to construct some rooms. Ajit Singh lifted committee for Rs. 4,000/- from Anokh Singh at loss. On 20.04.1996 Ajit Singh and his son Mangal Singh went to the house of the accused at village Khela. The said amount was paid to the accused, but he had stated that the amount was insufficient. Both of them stayed at the house of the accused due to pitched darkness during the night. After taking meals, Narinder Kaur deceased and the accused went to sleep in a room while Ajit Singh and his son Mangal Singh went to sleep in the courtyard,. At about 12.30 A.M. shriek of Narinder Kaur deceased was heard and they both got up. They knocked at the door of the room but the same was not opened. An electric lamp was emitting light inside the room. When a push was given by Mangal Singh, window opened and it was found that the accused was giving electric current to the deceased on the right side of the neck, while she was lying on a cot. On an alarm raised, the accused left the electric wire there and strangulated her with a piece of cloth. On the alaram raised, the persons residing in neighbourhood also started giving calls. The accused, in the meantime, by opening the door, ran away taking away the said piece of cloth. They both went inside and found that Narinder Kaur had expired. They remained with the dead body throughout the night. 3. On 21.04.1996 during morning time, Ajit Singh, leaving Mangal Singh at the spot, proceeded to the police station to lodge a report. They both went inside and found that Narinder Kaur had expired. They remained with the dead body throughout the night. 3. On 21.04.1996 during morning time, Ajit Singh, leaving Mangal Singh at the spot, proceeded to the police station to lodge a report. On his way, in the area of village Fatehabad, he met SI Narinder Singh at ‘T’ point Khela during the course of Naqa held by them. Ajit Singh suffered statement, Ex. PC, and on the basis of this statement, a formal FIR, Ex.PC/1, was recorded. The motive of the occurrence given in the FIR is that the accused, being greedy of dowry, had killed Narinder Kaur by strangulating her and by giving electric shock. SI Narinder Singh investigated the case, went to the spot in the company of Ajit Singh, thereafter prepared the inquest report and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Rough site plan, Ex. PJ, with correct marginal notes was prepared. A wire of about 10 feet was lifted from the spot, which was converted into a sealed parcel and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PG. 4. On 21.04.1996 at about 4.30 P.M. Dr. Har Poonam (PW-1) had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Narinder Kaur and found six injuries and in the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. All the injuries were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time between the injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was within 24 hours. Ex. PA is the carbon copy of the post mortem report, while Ex. PA/1 to Ex. PA/4 are the pictorial diagrams showing the seats of the injuries. Clothes of the deceased were produced before SI Narinder Singh by Pargat Singh S.P.O. The same were turned into a parcel and the sealed parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PK. Accused was arrested by SI Narinder Singh and on interrogation in the presence of Ajit Singh and Mangal Singh, he suffered a disclosure statement to the effected that he had kept concealed the Parna in the area of village khela at the bank of the canal minor under the earth which was known to him only and offered to get the same discovered. His statement, Ex. His statement, Ex. PH, was reduced into writing which was thumb marked by the accused and attested by the PWs. The accused, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, got recovered a piece of cloth from the specified place, which was converted into a parcel and was taken into possession through recovery memo. After completing necessary formalities, accused was challaned and sent up for trial. 5. Accused was charge-sheeted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined Dr. Harpoonam (PW-1), Ajit Singh (PW-2), Mangal Singh (PW-3), Daljit Singh (PW-4), Sukhnandan Singh (PW-5) and SI Narinder Singh (PW-6) and after tendering affidavits, Ex. PE and Ex. PF, of formal witnesses and giving up some of the witnesses unnecessary, closed its evidence. 7. Accused in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure admitted that he was married to the deceased about five years before his statement and that a male child was born. He has also admitted that he was employed in a factory at Bhopal, but the rest of the allegations were denied. He opted to file written statement and the same was filed by him on 27.08.1997, wherein he was disclosed that he was employed at Bhopal even before marriage. It was a simple marriage and no dowry articles were accepted. The deceased and his parents were not asked to bring dowry articles or any case amount. The deceased remained with him at Bhopal for four months and then returned to their house. He used to visit the village during vacation. She instated to take her to Bhopal but due to unavoidable circumstances, he was not in apposition to do so. He opted not to lead evidence in defence. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 9. The learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that there was no prompt lodging of the First Information Report and the accused has been falsely implicated by introducing false witnesses and since FIR has not been lodged promptly, the case of the prosecution is doubtful. 9. The learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that there was no prompt lodging of the First Information Report and the accused has been falsely implicated by introducing false witnesses and since FIR has not been lodged promptly, the case of the prosecution is doubtful. He has further submitted that there are major discrepancies in the testimony of Ajit Singh (PW-2) and Mangal Singh (PW-3) and then again they being related witnesses to the deceased and interested in the success of the prosecution case, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of these witnesses. 10. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned defence counsel, but for the reasons to be recorded by us hereinafter, the same are liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. 11. It is crystal clear from the record that occurrence had taken place on 21.04.1996 at about 12.30 A.M. (mid night). Statement, Ex.PC, of Ajit Singh, Father of the deceased, was completed at about 11.30 A.M. Ajit Singh categorically deposed that after leaving Mangal Singh at the spot, he proceeded to lodge a report in the morning time. The learned defence counsel submitted that when Narinder Kaur had expired at about 12.30 P.M., FIR could have been lodged thereafter without waiting for the morning time, particularly when as per FIR, the distance of the place of occurrence from Police Station Goindwal Sahib is given as 10 Kms., but keeping in view of the circumstances available on the record, it is, ipso facto, clear that Ajit Singh, being father of the deceased, must have remained under shock and afraid of the accused on account of dark night and that is why, he waited till morning in approaching the police. We are conscious of the fact that every person, who witnesses the murder, reacts in his own way, Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot and some start shouting for help and other rush to rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter attacking the accused. Everyone reacts in his own special way and there is no set rule of natural reaction. Thee is nothing on record to suggest that lodging of the FIR has intentionally been delayed to rope in innocent persons. Everyone reacts in his own special way and there is no set rule of natural reaction. Thee is nothing on record to suggest that lodging of the FIR has intentionally been delayed to rope in innocent persons. One of the essential requisites to ensure a fair trial is that the First information Report in respect of a cognizable offence should be lodged as soon as possible and then sent to the IIaqa Magistrate without any delay, Where the sending of special report is delayed. It not only gets bereft of its spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of the coloured version, thought out stories and twists to actual facts. The interested parties can then be sounded and some of them shown as false witnesses. Likewise, some innocent persons can be roped in and named as culprits as a result of much thought, consolation and discussion. To avoid these dangers, the Courts have always insisted upon the prompt lodging of the report to the police. In murder cases because of the enormity of the stakes involved, certain additional safeguards are provided to ensure that the version of the occurrence is disclosed as soon as possible thereafter and then a safeguard have again been provided under the law so that the Investigating agency may not change the scene of the occurrence and other facts. In Murder cases, a copy of the FIR is to be Sent to the IIaqa Magistrate immediately after the report is made. We find that there is an inordinate delay of 10 hours in lodging the FIR, but a cogent and plausible explanation, in our considered view, has been furnished by the prosecution with regard to the delay caused in lodging the FIR. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of the learned defence counsel that there was a delay in lodging the FIR with a view to falsely implicate the accused and introduction of the false the witnesses does not have any force and it being meritless, falls to the ground. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of the learned defence counsel that there was a delay in lodging the FIR with a view to falsely implicate the accused and introduction of the false the witnesses does not have any force and it being meritless, falls to the ground. 12. The record clearly spells out that when an incriminating circumstance with regard to the presence of the dead body of the wife of the accused at his house was put to him and the accused has offered no explanation except for saying that it is incorrect, to our mind, wherein the accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that the murder has been committed by him and it is also proved on record through the mouth of Ajit Singh (PW-2) and Mangal Singh (PW-3) that the accused and his wife during night time slept in their room that is shortly before the commission of the crime and the offence has taken place in the dwelling home where the accused-husband also normally resided and in such like circumstances if the accused does riot offer any explanation how the wife received injuries, then in that case it is a circumstance, which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. Since the accused was present at his house on that night and if death had occurred in his custody, he is under obligation to give plausible explanation with regard to causing of the death of his wife in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with the absence of any explanation is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused but consistent with the hypothesis that the present appellant is an accused in the commission of murder of his wife. Moreover, the medical evidence discloses that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours. The defence of the husband was that the wife had committed suicide. The dowry articles were left in the vehicle of PW4 Daljit Singh by Mangal Singh (PW-3). Relations between them were strained since the husband demanded dowry later on and further the evidence showed that both of them were present in one room in the night. The defence of the husband was that the wife had committed suicide. The dowry articles were left in the vehicle of PW4 Daljit Singh by Mangal Singh (PW-3). Relations between them were strained since the husband demanded dowry later on and further the evidence showed that both of them were present in one room in the night. The medical evidence showed that wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and she also suffered blisters on account of electric shock as deposed by the star witnesses, namely, Ajit Singh (PW-2) and Mangal Singh (PW-3). Therefore, in such like circumstances there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused who was perpetrator of the crime. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strongly argued that no reliance can be placed on the statements of Ajit Singh (PW­ 2), father of the deceased and Mangal Singh (PW-3), brother of the deceased, inasmuch as, they are close relations of the deceased and are always interested in the success of the prosecution case again does not cut any ice for the reasons to be recorded by us hereinafter. It is well settled law that there is no absolute rule that the evidence’ of a relative or 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 Ajit Singh (PW-2) and Mangal Singh (PW-3), who are father and brother of the deceased. They went to the house of the accused to make the payment of the amount which was demanded by accused-husband from them, but the amount demanded was insufficient, and by that time, both of them were forced to stay during night time on account of darkness. In such like circumstances, it can be inferred that the presence of these witnesses at the place of occurrence was quite natural. In Bhupendra Singh Vs. In such like circumstances, it can be inferred that the presence of these witnesses at the place of occurrence was quite natural. 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 and 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. 13. Now we would like to peep through the ocular evidence through the mouth of the witnesses, namely, Ajit Singh (PW-2) and Mangal Singh (PW-3), father and brother of the deceased. Both of them have deposed in a similar fashion and both of them have corroborated the statement of each other. Both of them have disclosed that Narinder Kaur deceased was married to Kewal Singh and when the accused had come back from Bhopal about a month before the present occurrence, he asked Narinder Kaur deceased to bring some money since no dowry was given to them at the time of marriage. Narinder Kaur then came to her father Ajit Singh (PW-2) and informed him that the accused was demanding dowry. He has further deposed that they told her that dowry would be given after few days and Narinder Kaur went back to the house of the accused and after about 15 days, they procured all articles of dowry loaded them in a vehicle and delivered these to the accused at his house, which included two beds, four chairs, one table, one big iron box, some clothes and some utensils. The vehicle in which they had carried the goods was owned by Daljit Singh and Mangal Singh had gone to deliver the dowry articles, but Narinder Kaur informed Mangal Singh that the accused was also demanding Rs.10,000/- for constructing a room and this demand was raised when dowry articles were delivered to the accused by Mangal Singh. A sum of Rs.4,000/- was arranged and he and his son Mangal Singh went to the house of accused, paid Rs.4,000/-on 20.4.1996. They have further deposed that they stayed for the night as it had gone dark and they both had lied on the beds spread in the courtyard of the house while accused and his daughter Narinder Kaur slept in their room. At about 12.30 at night time, they heard shriek of Narinder Kaur and after hearing this, they pushed the door of the room of the accused, but it was bolted from inside and then they pushed the window of the room, which opened and an electric shock was emitting light in the room of the accused and they found that accused was giving electric shock to Narinder Kaur and when they raised alarm, accused strangulated Narinder Kaur by a piece of cloth and thereafter accused opened door and ran away. Dilbagh Singh (PW-4) has further advanced the case of the prosecution by disclosing that in the year 1996 he used to ply a Peter Rehra and he had loaded one big iron box, one double bed, four chairs and one table from the house of Mangal Singh and had taken the same in his vehicle to village Khela to the house of in-laws of sister of Mangal Singh. Mangal Singh had accompanied him in the vehicle along with goods to village Khela. This witness has proved about the entrustment of the dowry articles to the accused, which were given on his asking as discussed above. No explanation has come forward from the accused in any manner with regard to the recovery of the dead body from his house and in the absence of such an explanation on the part of the accused further advances the case of the prosecution towards the guilt of the accused. No explanation has come forward from the accused in any manner with regard to the recovery of the dead body from his house and in the absence of such an explanation on the part of the accused further advances the case of the prosecution towards the guilt of the accused. It is also proved on record from the written statement of accused Kewal Singh that no dowry was accepted at the time of marriage, meaning thereby that later on, there was an occasion for the accused to have asked Narinder Kaur to bring dowry articles from her father since the same were not given when the marriage was solemnized. Occurrence took place at the house of the accused at mid night and the circumstances existing on the record do spell out that relations between the deceased and the accused were not cordial. The conduct of the brother and father of the accused after the commission of the crime by the accused cannot be taken unusual or unnatural. Since it has been often found that the residents of the village because of the fear of the accused or by way of sympathy could be reluctant to come to the spot and normally people in general hesitate to be witnesses in such like occurrence. Moreover, question of any false implication does not arise since father and brother of the deceased would make every effort to nab the real culprit, who has cut short the life of their daughter. We find that the statements of both the star witnesses of the prosecution are consistent and lengthy cross-examination could not cause any dent in the prosecution version and nothing of importance could be elicited during the course of cross-examination in favour of the defence. The presence of these two witnesses at the house of the accused on the night of occurrence cannot be termed as unnatural and their testimony about the commission of crime by accused cannot be ignored. It is settled law that the members of the family if present at the time of occurrence are the most natural witnesses. The learned defence counsel faced with this situation referred to certain discrepancies and variations in their earlier statements recorded before the police and later statements recorded before the Court, but to our mind, such like minor discrepancies do occur when the witnesses depose before the court truthfully after a lapse of time. The learned defence counsel faced with this situation referred to certain discrepancies and variations in their earlier statements recorded before the police and later statements recorded before the Court, but to our mind, such like minor discrepancies do occur when the witnesses depose before the court truthfully after a lapse of time. That apart, minor discrepancies and contradictions coming in the testimony of the witnesses is no ground to discard the entire evidence of the prosecution and no importance is required to be given to the minor discrepancies in such like cases and even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident. The medical evidence has further advanced the case of the prosecution. Dr. Harpoonam (PW-1), who conducted an autopsy has deposed that six injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased and she found irregular blister measuring 11 cms x 5 cms. During the course of cross-examination this doctor has categorically deposed that blisters are caused either by electric current or if some hot liquid falls on the body and such injuries could not be caused by any other manner. She has further stated that death could be caused by strangulation. Therefore, the testimony of the witnesses regarding electric current cannot be disbelieved. The electric wire has also been recovered from the spot by the police and the recovery of this wire clearly proves on record that the accused had committed an offence as alleged. The learned defence counsel, in view of all this, further argued that in fact, it is a case of suicide, but this contention of the learned defence counsel does not cut any ice with us since the doctor in her cross-examination has categorically stated that in this case hyoid bone has been fractured and as such it could not be a case of hanging. She has further explained that considering the various injuries, she has come to the conclusion that it was not a case of hanging. The version put forward by the prosecution has been rightly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge when there is no explanation from the side of the accused as to how his wife lost her life, but he has given no explanation as to how and in what manner, she died at his house when he was present there. 14. The version put forward by the prosecution has been rightly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge when there is no explanation from the side of the accused as to how his wife lost her life, but he has given no explanation as to how and in what manner, she died at his house when he was present there. 14. Lastly, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that no strong motive has been provided by the prosecution for committing the murder of Narinder Kaur, but this contention of the learned counsel is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection because 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 could 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. 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 criminal case and absence of motive does not speak of the innocence of the accused where direct evidence against the accused is overwhelming, but in this case the motive has been duly proved and provided by the prosecution through the mouth of the witnesses, namely Ajit Singh (PW-2 ) and Mangal Singh (PW­ 3), who have categorically deposed that the accused had grievance that at the time of marriage, no dowry articles were given and later on, a demand of Rs.10,000/-. was made by the accused, which the parents of the deceased could not meet. was made by the accused, which the parents of the deceased could not meet. Record clearly spells out that the father of the deceased made the payment of Rs.4,000/- and the rest of the amount was also promised to give later on and on the night of occurrence these two witnesses namely Ajit Singh (PW-2) and Mangal Singh (PW-3) were also present at the house of the accused, who had seen the accused strangulating Narinder Kaur deceased with the help of a piece of cloth. In such like circumstances, it is crystal clear that a strong motive has been provided by the prosecution in the instant case. In view of the above discussion, appeal filed by the appellant fails and it is dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge is upheld. ----------------------------