JUDGMENT Hon’ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.—Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 19.3.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 17), Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 268 of 2003 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for three months. 2. The brief facts of the case mentioned in the first information report lodged by Akram on 8.8.2002 at 00.45 A.M. are that his father and mother live in the Farm House of Rizwanullah in Village Purwa Meer. On 7.8.2002 he alongwith his maternal uncle Noorulain came to Farm House to meet his father and after taking dinner they were lying on the roof alongwith his father and mother. At about 11.30 in the night his father called other employees of the Farm House namely Ram Singh and Bhagat @ Mahavir and shouted that blue bull has come. Ram Singh and others also started rushing and shouting. He and his maternal uncle woke up. There was no electricity and a generator was on. When Ram Singh and Bhagat reached near them, his father flashed torch and went to chase blue bull. As soon as he reached near the western side of Verandah, Baghela s/o Surajpal r/o Tendua, Fatehpur and Chhiddu Singh s/o Harpal Singh r/o Purwa Meer started assaulting his father with Kulhari. His father raised alarm. He alongwith his maternal uncle and mother came down and saw that his father was being assaulted with Kulhari by Baghela and Chhiddu Singh. They tried to apprehend them but both of them ran away towards western side. They had recognized them in the light of generator. They brought his father near the Verandah, but he had succumbed to his injuries. Baghela used to work earlier in the same Farm House, but once he was apprehended in a theft by his father and he was removed from the service. On account of that enmity he had committed the murder. He had telephonically informed the owner of the Farm House and family members of his maternal uncle. They reached there and a report was lodged at the police station on 8.8.2002 at 12.45 a.m. 3. On account of that enmity he had committed the murder. He had telephonically informed the owner of the Farm House and family members of his maternal uncle. They reached there and a report was lodged at the police station on 8.8.2002 at 12.45 a.m. 3. After the registration of the first information report Sub-Inspector Chhavi Narain Singh reached at the Farm House of Rizwan alongwith constables Shakti Vir Singh and Ranvir Singh. Station House officer also reached there and on his direction he had prepared the inquest report in the morning at 6.30 a.m. Inquest was completed at 8.00 a.m. and the dead-body was sealed and handed over to the constables Satya Vir Singh and Ranvir Singh for carrying it to the Mortuary, which is Ext. Ka.5 and letters to R.I., C.M.O., photo lash, challan lash were prepared which are Ext. Ka.6 to Ext. Ka. 10. 4. The post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Jitendra Agrawal on 8.8.2002 at 11.00 a.m. He noted following ante-mortem injuries : 1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm bone deep right parietal region of head 5 cm above right ear. 2. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm bone deep on vertex of head 7 cm above bridge of nose. 3. Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm bone deep right side of neck lower jaw cut Neurovascular Bundle was cut with cut of inclement muscles. 4. Incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm bone deep right side neck over chin 2 cm below injury No. 3, underneath all Neurovascular and muscles with bone cut. 5. Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm front and right side of neck underneath trachea cut 3 cm below injury No. 4. 6. Incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm over right clavicle withfracture of right clavicle. 7. Incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm right side of chin muscle deep. 5. According to the opinion of the Doctor cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. 6. S.S.I. Vijay Raj Singh is the investigating officer of the case. He had collected the blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared its recovery memo, which is Ext. 3. On 8.8.2002 he had recovered a blood stained Kulhari from the house of Baghela and prepared its recovery memo, which is Ext. Ka. 13. 6. S.S.I. Vijay Raj Singh is the investigating officer of the case. He had collected the blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared its recovery memo, which is Ext. 3. On 8.8.2002 he had recovered a blood stained Kulhari from the house of Baghela and prepared its recovery memo, which is Ext. Ka. 13. He had also prepared site plan of the recovery of Kulhari, which is Ext. Ka.14. He had also recovered one black pant and one blood stained Baniyan from the house of Chhiddu Singh. He had prepared recovery memo, which is Ext.Ka.15 and the site plan is Ext. Ka.16. On 9.8.2002 he had recorded the statement of eye witness Noorulain. 7. S.O. Ashok Rana had also investigated the case. On 27.8.2002 he had recovered a Kulhari on the pointing out of Chhiddu Singh. Recovery memo is Ext. Ka. 17 and the site plan is Ext. Ka.18. After the conclusion of the investigation he had submitted the charge-sheet. 8. After the committal of the case the learned Sessions Judge has framed charge under Section 302, I.P.C. In order to prove its case the prosecution had examined seven witnesses. 9. P.W. 1 Akram is informant of the case. He deposed that on 7.8.2002 he alongwith his maternal uncle Noorulain came to his father and after taking dinner they were lying on the roof alongwith his father and mother. At about 11.30 in the night his father called other employees of the Farm House namely Ram Singh and Bhagat @ Mahavir and stated that blue bull has come. Ram Singh and others also started coming to their side raising voice. He and his maternal uncle woke up. There was no electricity and a generator was on. When Ram Singh and Bhagat reached near them his father flashed torch and went to chase blue bull. As soon as he reached near the western side of Verandah Baghela s/o Surajpal r/o Tendua, Fatehpur and Chhiddu Singh s/o Harpal Singh r/o Purwa Meer started assaulting his father with Kulhari. His father raised alarm. He alongwith his maternal uncle and mother got down and saw that his father was being assaulted with Kulhari by Baghela and Chhiddu Singh. They tried to apprehend them but both of them ran away towards western side. Both the accused were identified in the light of the generator. His father raised alarm. He alongwith his maternal uncle and mother got down and saw that his father was being assaulted with Kulhari by Baghela and Chhiddu Singh. They tried to apprehend them but both of them ran away towards western side. Both the accused were identified in the light of the generator. They brought his father near the Verandah, but he had succumbed to his injuries. Baghela used to work earlier in the same Farm House. Once he was apprehended for committing theft and his father had complained to his employer and he was removed from the service. On account of that enmity he had committed the murder. He had informed his employer and the family members of the maternal uncle on telephone. Thereafter he scribed the F.I.R. and lodged the same at the police station, which is Ext. Ka. 1. 10. P.W. 2 is Zoharunnisha. She deposed that occurrence took place about two years back. On 7.8.2002 at about 11.30 in the night she alongwith her husband, son Akram and her brother Noorulain were lying on the roof after taking dinner. She was awakening. Her son Akram and Noorulain had reached there after the sun set. Her husband Iddu had called other employees Ram Singh and Bhagat for chasing blue bull. Ram Singh and Bhagat flashing their torches and raising alarm reached there. Hearing the hue and cry her brother and son Akram woke up. Generator was on and there was no electric light. Her husband got down alongwith his brother and reached on the western side of Verandah. Baghela and Chhiddu started assaulting her husband. Her husband raised alarm. She, her son and brother reached there and saw in the light of the bulb that the accused were assaulting her husband with Kulhari and accused persons ran away. Her husband had sustained serious injuries and he died. 11. She further deposed that Baghela had earlier worked in the Farm House for one year. He had committed theft and the employer had removed him from his service. He was suspecting that on account of Iddu he was removed from the service. Her son had lodged the report at the police station. 12. P.W. 3 is Dr. Jitendra Agrawal who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased. 13. P.W. 4 constable Ramesh Chandra had proved the chik F.I.R., which is Ext. He was suspecting that on account of Iddu he was removed from the service. Her son had lodged the report at the police station. 12. P.W. 3 is Dr. Jitendra Agrawal who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased. 13. P.W. 4 constable Ramesh Chandra had proved the chik F.I.R., which is Ext. Ka.3 and G.D. entry which is Ext. Ka.4. He had also informed the higher officer on the R.T. set. 14. P.W. 5 Chhavi Nath Singh is Sub-Inspector. 15. P.W. 6 Vijay Raj Singh is S.S.I. He is the first investigating officer of the case. 16. P.W. 7 Ashok Rana is second investigating officer of the case. He had concluded the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. 17. The case of the defence is of denial and they did not produce any witness in defence and stated under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that they were pressurizing to sell his land, but he had refused to sell them and on that account they have falsely been implicated in this case. 18. We have heard Sri Ashish Sehgal, learned Counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 4593 of 2005. Sri Arun Kumar Singh did not appear and the Court heard Sri Ashish Sehgal who was appointed as Amicus Curiae in Criminal Appeal No. 1737 of 2005. 19. Learned Counsel for the appellants has challenged the findings of the trial Court on the ground that the appellant had no motive to commit the murder and there was sufficient reason for false implication of the appellant and no independent witness is supporting the prosecution case. The occurrence took place in the dark night. There was no source of light for recognizing the appellants and the presence of the witnesses at the time of occurrence is also doubtful. There is conflict in medical and direct evidence and there is no explanation of lacerated wound. The F.I.R. is ante timed. 20. It is further submitted that the investigating officer has stated that the case was registered at 11.30 p.m. The inquest was prepared around 11 to 11.30 P.M. and it was prepared prior to lodging of the F.I.R. 21. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had no motive to commit the offence has got no substance. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had no motive to commit the offence has got no substance. The motive for the crime as mentioned by the witnesses is that appellant Baghela used to work in the Farm House and he was removed from the service on the complaint of the deceased. It is a case of direct evidence. If the incident in question as projected by the prosecution is to be accepted then the presence or absence of a motive or strength of the said motive by itself also will not make the prosecution case weak. The source of light is mentioned by the witnesses in the F.I.R. that there was a generator. The investigating officer has also mentioned the presence of the generator in the Farm House and it is also not challenged by the accused that the witnesses did not identify them. Known persons can also be identified in faint light. 22. Learned Counsel for the appellants has also challenged that the F.I.R. is ante timed. The testimony of P.W. 6 S.S.I. Vijay Raj Singh, investigating officer shows that the case was registered at 11.30 a.m. and it is also stated that inquest was prepared prior to registration of the case. In our opinion this statement of the investigating officer is false or he deposed on account of some misunderstanding. The case was registered in his absence and the lodging of the report is provided by P.W. 4 constable Ramesh Chandra who had prepared the chik F.I.R. He has proved chik F.I.R. and G.D. entry which are Ext. Ka-3 and Ext. Ka-4. P.W. 5 S.I. Chhavi Narain Singh had prepared the inquest report and he deposed that inquest proceedings were completed at 8 a.m. The dead-body was also dispatched at 8 a.m. The F.I.R. is also one of the enclosures sent alongwith the inquest report and the post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 8.8.2002 at 11 a.m. Thus we find no force in the submission of the Counsel for the appellants that the F.I.R. is ante timed. 23. In our opinion, in this case the F.I.R. has been lodged promptly and the prompt lodging of the F.I.R. eliminates the chances of embellishment. 24. 23. In our opinion, in this case the F.I.R. has been lodged promptly and the prompt lodging of the F.I.R. eliminates the chances of embellishment. 24. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that according to the prosecution case Ram Singh and Bhagat who were independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution and only interested and chance witnesses are examined. 25. The submission of the non-examination of other witnesses and failure to examine all the witnesses, who may have witnessed the occurrence, will not result in outright rejection of the prosecution case if the witnesses examined by the prosecution are found to be truthful and reliable. Moreover, we cannot ignore the reality that many eye-witnesses shy away from giving evidence for obvious reasons. 26. Learned Counsel for the appellants has challenged the presence of P.W. 1 at the time of occurrence because he was a chance witness. His presence at the time of occurrence was not natural. The Counsel for the appellants submitted that testimony of P.W. 1 Akram should not have been relied upon because he was a relative and chance witness. We have considered the submission. It is a settled position that there is no proposition in law that relatives are treated as untruthful witness, just because the witness is related to the deceased would be no ground to discard their testimony if otherwise their testimony inspires confidence. Being relative it would be their endeavour to see that the real culprits are punished and normally they would not implicate wrong person in the crime, so as to allow the real culprits to escape unpunished. The evidence of a witness cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere “chance witness”. The expression chance witness is borrowed from countries where every man’s house is considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man’s castle. It is most unsuitable expression in a country whose people are less formal and more casual. 27. According to the statement of P.W. 1, he reached at the Farm House in the evening alongwith his maternal uncle. The statement of P.W. 1 inspires full confidence. He is informant of the case. His presence is also proved by P.W. 3 who had registered F.I.R. at 4.45 a.m. 28. 27. According to the statement of P.W. 1, he reached at the Farm House in the evening alongwith his maternal uncle. The statement of P.W. 1 inspires full confidence. He is informant of the case. His presence is also proved by P.W. 3 who had registered F.I.R. at 4.45 a.m. 28. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that there is conflict in the medical and direct evidence. It is pointed out that in the post-mortem examination doctor had noted two lacerated wounds also and there is no explanation as to how these injuries are caused. We do not find any substance in this submission. The deceased was assaulted by Kulhari (Axe) and the deceased must have tried to save himself and in that process it is quite possible he did not receive injury by sharp side of the Kulhari (Axe). Other injuries suffered by the deceased are typical Kulhari injuries. In our opinion there is no conflict in direct and medical evidence rather ocular testimony is corroborated by the medical evidence. 29. In view of the above both the appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants Baghela alias Ram Swaroop Kurmi and Chhiddu Singh by the trial Court is affirmed. Both the appellants are in jail. They shall be kept there to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by us. 30. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court within two weeks. ————