JUDGMENT H.S. Bhalla, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.8.1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which he convicted the present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in default thereof, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. However, the three other accused, namely, Bali alias Balbir, Chandro and Ramji Lal were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 2­. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under:­ The field of Ramesh deceased was situated adjoining the field of Ramji Lal accused. Ramesh resided with his wife Smt. Chaman (PW-5) and younger brother Pushpinder (PW-6) in the house built in the fields. Ramesh had three brothers, namely, Gopal, Sunil and Pushpinder (PW-6). At that time Gopal was working as bus driver at Badarpur, but was residing in village Badoli, while Sunil was residing at Faridabad. Accused had also constructed a residential house in the land, which they had purchased from one Chhida and this land adjoins the land of deceased Ramesh. On 5.6.1995 Ramesh was ploughing the land situated near his house while Smt. Chaman (PW-5) and Pushpinder (PW-6) were present in the house situated nearby. At about 7.00 P.M. Teju, his brother Bali, mother Chandro and father Ramji Lal accused came there. Teju accused was armed with a Kulhari. After trespassing into the field, Teju accused started felling a kikar tree standing in the field of Ramesh adjoining the doll of kacha passage. The said kikar tree was standing at a distance of 50 or 60 yards from the residential house of Ramesh deceased. Ramesh objected to it by saying that the kikar tree was standing in their field and should not be felled. However, he stated that if the accused still wanted to fell it, then its half share should be given to him. Thereafter, Ramesh returned to the place, where he was ploughing in the field. After a short while, Teju accused called Ramesh and asked him to have his share of the kikar tree. Smt. Chaman (PW-5) and Pushpinder (PW-6) were also attracted to that place. Teju accused handed over his Kulhari to Ramesh for felling the tree. Immediately thereafter, Teju accused snatched that Kulhari from Ramesh. After a short while, Teju accused called Ramesh and asked him to have his share of the kikar tree. Smt. Chaman (PW-5) and Pushpinder (PW-6) were also attracted to that place. Teju accused handed over his Kulhari to Ramesh for felling the tree. Immediately thereafter, Teju accused snatched that Kulhari from Ramesh. In the meanwhile, Bali, Smt. Chandro and Ramji Lal accused caught hold of Ramesh. Teju accused then inflicted a blow with kulhari on the neck of Ramesh and he fell down on the ground. While he was lying on the ground, Teju inflicted five or six more blows with Kulhari including his left arm, left shoulder and right wrist. Ramesh succumbed to his injuries at the spot. After committing murder of Ramesh, all the accused persons ran away. Puran Chand, Sub Inspector/Station House Officer, Police Station Hassanpur (PW-7) was present in village Khambi, where he received information about the murder of Ramesh in village Badoli. He reached the spot in the mid night, where Smt. Chaman (PW-5) made a statement, Ex. PG, on which he made his endorsement, Ex. PG/1 and sent it to the police station for registration of the case on which formal FIR, Ex. PG/2, was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector Rohtash Singh, whose signatures, he identified. He got the scene of occurrence photographed and photographs are Exs. P-1 to P-3. He prepared rough site plan, Ex. PK, of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes. He lifted blood stained earth vide recovery memo Ex. PL attested by Khillan and Rishi Raj, Head Constable. He prepared inquest report, Ex. PC, and moved an application to the Medical Officer for conducting the post mortem examination on the dead body of Ramesh and copy of application is Ex. PB. Post mortem examination on the dead body was conducted. Clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PM. On return to the police, he deposited the case property safely with the Moharrir Head Constable. On 9.6.1995 the Investigating Officer arrested Teju alias Tej Pal, Balbir and Ramji Lal accused. Accused produced Kulhari, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PQ. On completion of necessary formalities, accused were challaned and sent up for trial. 3. Accused Teju was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Accused produced Kulhari, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PQ. On completion of necessary formalities, accused were challaned and sent up for trial. 3. Accused Teju was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Dr. Chandrika Malik (PW-1), Gopal, Bus Driver (PW-2), Karan Singh, Patwari Halqa Badoli (PW-3), Zile Singh (PW-4), Sub Inspector, Smt. Chaman (PW-5), Pushpinder (PW-6) and Puran Chand (PW-7) Inspector CIA, Faridabad. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused denied all the prosecution allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record’ of the case minutely. 6. Learned defence counsel, at the outset, vehemently argued that there was a delay in lodging the FIR as the alleged occurrence had taken place on 5.6.1995 at about 7.00 P.M. and statement, Ex. PG, of Smt. Chaman (PW-5) was recorded at 12.30 A.M. on 6.6.1995 and FIR was recorded at 1.30 A.M. and special report was received by the lIaqa Magistrate at 8.00 A.M. and this delay could not be explained by the prosecution in any manner. Rather, all this spells out that it is a blind murder and the accused had been falsely implicated and the time was gained to connect a false story and therefore, prosecution story is doubtful and is liable to be thrown out on this short ground alone. We have considered the contention of the learned defence counsel and for the reasons to be recorded by us in this part of the judgment the same does not cut any ice with us since every case is to be decided as per its own facts. However, we would like to observe that Smt. Chaman (PW-5), wife of’deceased Ramesh, would be reluctant to spare real assailants. in place of other persons. Rather, she would not like to substitute any other person in place of real culprit. However, we are conscious of the fact that 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 lIaqa Magistrate without any delay. However, we are conscious of the fact that 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 lIaqa 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 an named as culprits as a result of much thought, consultation and discussed. 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 lIaqa Magistrate immediately after the report is made. We find that there is an inordinate delay of almost six hours in lodging the FIR and then further delay of eight hours in sending the Special Report to the learned lIaqa Magistrate, 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 witnesses does not have any force and it being meritless, falls to the ground. 7. It has been noticed by us that it was not possible to lodge a report to the police at the earliest keeping in view certain facts available on the record and apart from that, delay in lodging the First Information Report is not always fatal to the prosecution case if direct evidence is available on the record and it cannot be doubted by the Court in any manner. In the instant case, occurrence took place on 5.6.1995 at about 7.00 P.M. in the presence of Smt. Chaman (PW­5) and younger brother of her husband (Devar) Pushpinder (PW-6). Both the star witnesses of the prosecution have provided their ocular version. Their presence at the spot is natural since the house of deceased Ramesh is situated in the field at a short distance of 50-60 yards away from the place of occurrence. Statement of Smt. Chaman (PW-5), who is an illiterate lady, clearly spells out that she sent an intimation about the murder of her husband Ramesh to his parents as they resided in Faridabad with their son Sunil. She has further disclosed that her father-in-law Bhagirath reached the spot at 11.00 P.M. She has also pointed out that younger brother of her husband, namely, Gopal reached the place of occurrence at about 8.00 P.M., while Udey Ram came at the spot after a couple of minutes of the occurrence. She has also explained that she did not ask any person to report the matter to the police. Pushpinder (PW-6) has disclosed that Gopal had reached the place of occurrence at about 10.00 or 11.00 P.M., while Udey Ram came to that place at about 8.00 P.M. He has also deposed that Bhim, who was from neighbourhood, came at the place of occurrence at about 8.00 or 9.00 P.M. He has also explained that they had not asked Udey Ram and Gopal to set the police machinery into motion. The entire record and the statements of Smt. Chaman (PW-5) and Pushpinder (PW-6) clearly spells out that they are illiterate persons. The entire record and the statements of Smt. Chaman (PW-5) and Pushpinder (PW-6) clearly spells out that they are illiterate persons. In such like circumstances, it can safely be presumed that Smt. Chaman (PW-5) who lost her husband, was not expected, out of fear, to rush to the police station to lodge a report leaving the dead body unattended and her natural conduct could only be to inform her father-in-law Bhagirath at Faridabad, who reached the place of occurrence at about 11.00 P. M. and in the meantime, Puran Chand, Sub Inspector (PW-7), who was present in village Khambi, received information about the murder of Ramesh at about 10.30 P.M. He reached the place of occurrence at about 11.00 P.M. and in this manner, statement of Smt. Chaman (PW-5) along with endorsement was completed at 12.30 A.M. and it took about one or 1-1/2 hours to record the statement of Smt. Chaman, which was sent to the Police Station Hassanpur, which was at a distance of 14 KMs from the place of occurrence and it was received at 1.30 A.M. by the Moharrir Head Constable and then he recorded FIR, which must have been completed at about 3.00 A.M. and special report was sent to the IIaqa Magistrate at Palwal. Therefore, in such like circumstances, there is no much delay in lodging of the report and then sending the special report to the lIaqa Magistrate. Moreover, it has not been proved at all that Smt. Chaman (PW-5) and Pushpinder (PW-6) were inimical towards the accused or they had any motive to falsely implicate him. We have observed’ number of times that the witnesses and the victim, who are poor iIliterate persons, are not expected to be familiar with the intricacies of law of the land and should not be expected from them to rush to the Police Station to lodge the First Information Report as their first priority was to save the victim’s life. In the present case as per the demeanour of Smt. Chaman (PW-5) and Push pinder (PW-6), their first priority was to inform the parents of the deceased. In the instant case, incident took lace in the field’ and the parents of the deceased were not present there as they were at Faridabad. In the present case as per the demeanour of Smt. Chaman (PW-5) and Push pinder (PW-6), their first priority was to inform the parents of the deceased. In the instant case, incident took lace in the field’ and the parents of the deceased were not present there as they were at Faridabad. Therefore, the first concern of Smt. Chaman (PW-5) was to inform them and accordingly, she sent some person to inform her father-in-law at Faridabad and he reached the spot at 11.00 P.M. and after about half an hour Puran Chand, Sub Inspector (PW-7) also reached there and recorded the statement of Smt. Chaman (PW-5). In such like circumstances, it can easily be inferred that if there is any delay on the part of the complainant to report the matter to the police for the reasons mentioned above, then in that eventuality, First Information Report loses it significance especially when a cogent and plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution, which fact is evident from the testimony of the witnesses referred to above. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that in the instant case motive part is missing and therefore, the case of the prosecution was not free from doubt, but this contention of the learned defence counsel is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection since 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 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. 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. In the instant case, the dispute between the accused and the deceased was with regard to share of a kikar tree and deceased was called to cut the kikar tree as per his share as is evident from the plea taken by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which resulted in the death of a prime life of a person namely Ramesh by chopping of his neck with a kulhari by the appellant in the presence of the witnesses referred to above. Further, the incident took place in the field at a distance of 50-60 yards from the house of the deceased and the presence of both these witnesses was quite natural. 9. It was next contended by the learned defence counsel that both the eye witnesses, namely, Smt. Chaman, wife of the deceased (PW-5) and Pushpinder, brother of the deceased (PW-6), being interested in the success of the prosecution case, no reliance should be placed on their testimony and their presence at the scene of occurrence is doubtful. Another reason to discard their statements has been given by the learned defence counsel is that their conduct in not going to the rescue of the deceased was unnatural. 10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned defence counsel and the same is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection for the reasons to be recorded by us inasmuch, as 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. 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. In the present case, both the witnesses Smt. Chaman (PW-5) wife of the deceased and Pushpinder (PW-6), brother of the deceased, though were present at the place of occurrence, but if did not react in any manner, that does not cause any dent in the prosecution version. However, both the witnesses namely Smt. Chaman (PW-5) wife of the deceased and Pushpinder (PW-6), brother of the deceased have deposed in a similar fashion by disclosing that their field is near the house in village Baroli. On 5.6.1995 her husband Ramesh was ploughing the land. She and her husband’s brother Pushpinder were present in the house. At about 7.00 P.M., Teju, his brother Bali, mother Chandra and father Ramji Lal accused came over there. Teju accused was armed with a Kulhari. After trespassing into their field, Teju accused started felling a Kikar tree standing over there. Her husband objected to that saying that the kikar tree was standing in his field. Teju accused had handed over that Kulhari to Ramesh and asked him to fell his share of Kikar. Immediately thereafter, Teju accused snatched that Kulhari from her husband and attacked upon him with that weapon. The other three accused, namely, Balli, Chandro and Ramji Lal Caught hold of her husband. Teju accused inflicted blow with that Kulhari on the neck of her husband and consequently, her husband fell down. Teju accused continued to inflict injuries and he inflicted blows with Kulhari on various part of the body of her husband after he had fell down. Her husband succumbed to his injuries. Accused persons sped away from the spot. Thereafter, she sent an intimation to the parents’ of her husband at Faridabad. Police came at the spot at about 12.30 mid night. Her statement was recorded by the police. She was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the defence and both the witnesses stood like a rock even during the course of their cross­ examination and stuck to their version with regard to the causing of injuries with a kulhari by accused Teju. Her statement was recorded by the police. She was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the defence and both the witnesses stood like a rock even during the course of their cross­ examination and stuck to their version with regard to the causing of injuries with a kulhari by accused Teju. The presence of these two witnesses, in the circumstances narrated above, was natural at the spot since the place of occurrence was just near the house of deceased Ramesh and their testimony cannot be doubted in any manner. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strongly argued that no reliance can be placed on the statements of Smt. Chaman (PW -5) and Pushpinder (PW -6) wife and brother of the deceased respectively 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 law 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 Smt. Chaman (PW-5) and Pushpinder (PW-6), who are wife and brother of the deceased. Their presence at the scene of the crime was natural and cannot be doubted in any manner. 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. 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 V s. State of U.P., AIR 1974 Supreme Court 839 and Mst. Dalbir Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal and maintain conviction and sentence of the appellant awarded by the Sessions Judge. The appellant, if on bail, shall surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the sentence inflicted upon him. —————————