JUDGMENT H.S. Bhalla, J.:- This appeal is the outcome of the conviction and sentence order dated 21.2.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (I), Sangrur, by virtue of which, he convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved against this judgment, the appellant had no other option but to knock the door of this Court by way of filing this appeal. 2. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under:­ On 16.1.1992 Baghel Singh, resident of village Nidampur, Police Station Bhawanigarh made statement, Ex. PD, to Sub Inspector Kewal Krishan when he was present at Patiala Bye Pass, Sangrur along with other police officials. His statement, Ex. PD, runs as under:- “I am the resident of village Nidampur. I have got two brothers, namely, Kirpal Singh and Gurmit Singh. They are elder to me. Kirpal Singh is an employee in the Electricity Board and is posted at Sunam. On the last night at about 6.00 P.M. for some domestic work, I had come to Sangrur to meet my brother Kirpal Singh and my sister-in-law Bhajan Kaur told me that my brother Kirpal Singh had been called by Amarjit Singh, Ramdasia, of her village to the house of Harchand Singh, the husband of his sister, and had told that they would come back within two or three hours. We waited for him till 1.30 A.M. but Kirpal Singh did not return. After talking Atma Singh son of Sant Singh, Jat, residents of village Bakshiwala, who used to live in the house of Kirpal Singh, with me, I went to inquire about Kirpal Singh at the house of Harchand Singh. In the street, we heard noise from the chaubara of Harchand Singh. The door of the house of Harchand Singh was open. Both of us went up the stairs. The electric bulb was on in the chaubara. When we were about to enter the chaubara, Amarjit Singh stated Harchand Singh “shoot Kirpal Singh as he quarrels with us in her house and hurle abuses”. The door of the house of Harchand Singh was open. Both of us went up the stairs. The electric bulb was on in the chaubara. When we were about to enter the chaubara, Amarjit Singh stated Harchand Singh “shoot Kirpal Singh as he quarrels with us in her house and hurle abuses”. The moment he stated this thing accused Harchand Singh picked up the rifle and fired at my brother Kirpal Singh, who at that time was sitting on the cot. The fire hits Kirpal Singh above his chest and then strucks the wall. Kirpal Singh, due to shot, fell from the cot on the floor and died on the spot I and Atma Singh tried to catch hold of Harchand Singh and Amarjit Singh, who ran away from the spot along with the weapon. About 8-10 days earlier, a dispute had arisen regarding some money transaction between Amarjit Singh and Kirpal Singh, which was got compromised with the intervention of Sarpanch Dalip Singh of our village. I have got doubt that Amarjit Singh and Harchand Singh had killed my brother Kirpal Singh due to the grudge of their dispute by calling him at his house to kill him with common intention. Leaving Atma Singh on the spot and after taking Bhajan Kaur wife of Kirpal Singh from her house, I was coming to the Police Station for giving the above said information that you have met me. Proceedings be taken.” After recording the statement, the same was read over to Bhagel Singh, who after admitting the same was thumb marked by him, which was attested by Kewal Krishan. Kewal Krishan sent the above statement to the Police Station for registration of the case through Constable Mahi Pal, on the basis of which, formal FIR, Ex. PD/3 was recorded by SI Balwant Rai. After completion of necessary formalities, accused was sent up for trial. 3. Accused was charge sheeted under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 12 witnesses, namely, Dr. After completion of necessary formalities, accused was sent up for trial. 3. Accused was charge sheeted under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 12 witnesses, namely, Dr. Rajiv Kumar (PW-1), Bhagel Singh (PW-2), Atma Singh (PW-3), Constable Mahi Pal Singh (PW­ 4), Leela Singh (PW-5), SI Harminder Singh (PW-6), Dharmender Singh (PW-7), Bhajan Kaur (PW-8), Dev Raj (PW-9), Sohan Singh (PW-10), HC Kashmira Singh (PW-11) and S.I. Kewal Krishan (PW­ 12). 5. 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 in the present case. Accused closed his defence evidence without leading any evidence. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 7. The learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that it was a case of blind murder and the witnesses of the prosecution are related to deceased, therefore, no reliance can be placed on their statements. Moreover, the presence of the eye-witnesses, namely Bhagel Singh (PW-2) and Atma Singh (PW-3), at the late hours, at 2.00 A.M. when the deceased was allegedly shot dead is not established and in fact, they were introduced later on. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there are circumstances which do spell out that their presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful. He further submitted that the First Information Report is anti timed and there is an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report and the same was also received at a belated stage, thus creating a suspicion that the said time was consumed for consultations and confabulations. Learned counsel has also submitted that the motive is not established by the Prosecution. He has also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular evidence. He has also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that how the rifle came in the possession of accused Harchand Singh and there are also glaring improvements made by the prosecution to introduce false motive to make improbable and false story look natural. 8. He has also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular evidence. He has also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that how the rifle came in the possession of accused Harchand Singh and there are also glaring improvements made by the prosecution to introduce false motive to make improbable and false story look natural. 8. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned defence counsel and for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, they do not cut ice with us. 9. A perusal of the file clearly spells out that the prosecution has placed reliance on the direct evidence of Bhagel Singh (PW-2) and Atma Singh (PW-3) as well as on the medical evidence and the recoveries of incriminating evidence, i.e., gun and 24 cartridges in pursuance to the disclosure statement made by accused Harchand Singh. 10. Before laying our hands on the evidence led by the prosecution, it is necessary to find out motive behind the murder of Kirpal Singh. Bhajan Kaur (PW-8) has disclosed that about two years prior to the occurrence, Rs.10,000/- was taken by accused Amarjit Singh from her husband Kirpal Singh on credit and promised to repay the same within 20 days or month. She further deposed that 10-15 days prior to the incident, a dispute had arisen between the husband Kirpal Singh and accused Amarjit Singh regarding the return of the said amount, which was compromised with the intervention of Dalip Singh, Sarpanch of Village Nidampur and as per terms of the compromise, Amarjit Singh was required to return the amount, but the same was not returned and on account of this reason, Kirpal Singh had been killed. Accused Harchand Singh is related to accused Amarjit Singh as his sister’s husband. 11. After having gone through the statement, Ex.PD, of Bhajan Kaur, we find that there is vague reference to the motive referred to by Bhagel Singh wherein it is mentioned that he had’ doubt that accused Harchand Singh and Amarjit Singh had killed his brother Kirpal Singh on account of the dispute regarding the money transaction. We are of the opinion that the learned defence counsel has rightly pointed out that no convincing evidence had been led in order to prove motive and moreover, no body will commit a murder for Rs.10,000/-. We are of the opinion that the learned defence counsel has rightly pointed out that no convincing evidence had been led in order to prove motive and moreover, no body will commit a murder for Rs.10,000/-. Without going into the merits of the transaction of Rs.10,000/-, we would like to observe that the 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 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. 12. In order to prove the ocular version, we would like to lay our hands at the first instance on the statement of Bhagel Singh (PW-2), who is brother of Kirpal Singh deceased. He has categorically deposed that on the date of occurrence, he had come to the house of Kirpal Singh at about 6.00 P.M. when Bhajan Kaur wife of Kirpal Singh told him that Kirpal Singh had returned to the house and Amarjit Singh, Ramdasia of village Nidampur had taken Kirpal Singh to the house of Harchand Singh and that they had told Bhajan Kaur that Kirpal Singh would return within 2-3 hours. He also proved that accused Harchand is married to the sister of accused Amarjit Singh. He further deposed that they waited for Kirpal Singh till 1.30 AM. during night, but Kirpal Singh did not return and thereafter he along with Atma Singh tried to search for Kirpal Singh at the house of accused Harchand Singh and when they reached there, they heard noise from the chaubara of accused Harchand Singh. He further deposed that they waited for Kirpal Singh till 1.30 AM. during night, but Kirpal Singh did not return and thereafter he along with Atma Singh tried to search for Kirpal Singh at the house of accused Harchand Singh and when they reached there, they heard noise from the chaubara of accused Harchand Singh. He further deposed that the door of the house of accused Harchand Singh was open and he along with Atma Singh went up-stairs the chaubara where electric bulb was emitting light. He put his foot on the threshold of the said chaubara in the presence of Atma Singh. This witness also stated that he heard accused Amarjit Singh telling accused Harchand Singh that the later should fire shot at Kirpal Singh as Kirpal Singh was taking up quarrels after coming to their house and was hurling abuses to them. This witness further deposed that accused Harchand Singh picked up his rifle lying nearby and fired shot at Kirpal Singh, which hit Kirpal Singh on his chest and at that time Kirpal Singh was sitting on the cot and the bullet which hit Kirpal Singh pierced through his chest and then hit the wall. Kirpal Singh fell on the floor of the Chaubara and died there immediately. He and, Atma Singh tried to catch hold of accused Harchand Singh and Amarjit Singh, but they escaped from there and ran away with their rifle. He further disclosed that leaving Atma Singh near the dead body, he went to the house of his brother Kirpal Singh and told Bhajan Kaur, wife of Kirpal Singh, about the incident and thereafter, he and Bhajan Kaur left the house for going to Police Station when on the way at Patiala Crossing, Sangrur, police met them and he narrated the entire occurrence to the police and his statement, Ex. PD, was recorded. Atma Singh (PW-3) deposed in a similar fashion and they corroborated the statement of each other. It was in his presence that accused Amarjit Singh came to the house of Kirpal Singh at about 6.00 P.M. and he heard Amarjit Singh telling Kirpal Singh that he should accompany him to the house of Harchand Singh and they would return after about 2-3 hours. Both of them left the house. He further deposed that thereafter Baghel Singh, the brother of Kirpal Singh, came to their house. Both of them left the house. He further deposed that thereafter Baghel Singh, the brother of Kirpal Singh, came to their house. He has disclosed that after waiting for Kirpal Singh till 1.30 A.M. during night he accompanied Bhagel Singh towards the house of Harchand Singh to inquire about Kirpal Singh. 13. After having gone through the statements of both these witnesses, namely Bhagel Singh (PW-2) and Atma Singh (PW-3), it is established on record that the firing of shot is established from the -­ rifle by accused Harchand Singh. S.I. Kewal Krishan (PW-12), the Investigating officer of this case, has proved the site plan with correct marginal notes of the place of occurrence. He lifted blood with cotton from the place of occurrence. The photographs, Exs. P-11 and P-12, were also taken to prove the place of occurrence, which show the dead body of Kirpal Singh lying in a pool of blood. He lifted empty cartridge, Ex. P-15, and converted the same into a parcel and took it into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PQ. The place of occurrence is fully established and there is no doubt regarding the place of occurrence as the pellet, Ex. P-17/A, pieces of fallen plaster from near the wall, Ex. P-18/A were taken into possession by S.I. Kewal Krishan from the spot. Blood stained Gada, Ex. P-19/A was also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from the spot. Both Bhagel Singh (PW-2), Atma Singh (PW-3) and S.I. Kewal Krishan (PW-12), the Investigating Officer, were cross-examined at length, but nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the defence. Both the star witnesses of the prosecution stuck to their stand and have advanced the case of the prosecution towards the guilt of the accused. Faced with this situation, learned defence counsel has pointed out that both the witnesses, namely, Bhagel Singh (PW-2) and Atma Singh (PW-3), being related, are interested witnesses and their statements should not be taken into consideration, but this contention of the learned defence counsel is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. It is settled law that the evidence of relation witnesses does not make their evidence unreliable, but it certainly puts the Court to scrutinize their evidence with more than ordinary care. It is settled law that the evidence of relation witnesses does not make their evidence unreliable, but it certainly puts the Court to scrutinize their evidence with more than ordinary care. In the present case, there is nothing on the file to suggest that these witnesses have been introduced later on or the time of occurrence has been shifted and the First Information Report is anti-timed. Moreover, it is the case of the prosecution that Atma Singh (PW-3), being the son-in-law of the deceased, used to reside in his house for the last three years before. his death and his wife is also residing in the same house. The presence of Atma Singh (PW-3) is not doubtful nor there is any improbability in Atma Singh being co-habiting with his wife in the house of her father as it is proved on record that he had no other son. Therefore, staying of Atma Singh (PW-3) with Kirpal Singh deceased is possible. The presence and visit of Baghel Singh (PW-2) to the house of Kirpal Singh, being his real brother, is also not improbable. Some minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses are bound to occur when the witnesses depose truthfully before the Court after such a long period and the trial Court rightly ignored the same. 14. Learned defence counsel has further contended that there is an unexplained delay in sending the First Information Report to the Ilaqa Magistrate, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution and on this ground alone, the appellant is liable to be acquitted. Let us examine this important aspect of the matter on the basis of evidence available on the record. Kewal Krishan, S.I., who appeared into the witness box as PW-12, has categorically deposed that as per the DDR, special report was sent to the lIaqa Magistrate at 6.20 A.M. through Constable Mohinder Singh. The First Information Report was recorded at 5.15 P.M.. We would like to observe that every case is to be scrutinized as per its own facts and circumstance and the delay in the present case does not affect the prosecution case in any manner as direct evidence clearly establishes the crime at the hands of the present appellant. The First Information Report was recorded at 5.15 P.M.. We would like to observe that every case is to be scrutinized as per its own facts and circumstance and the delay in the present case does not affect the prosecution case in any manner as direct evidence clearly establishes the crime at the hands of the present appellant. Moreover, there is no material available on the record which could establish that the delay was used to make improvements in the prosecution version or to rope in innocent persons in the commission of crime or to introduce the witnesses at a later stage to depose against the accused. In the instant case, occurrence had taken place at 2.00 A.M. and the First Information Report was lodged at 5.15 P.M. Bhagel Singh (PW-2) has deposed that leaving Atma Singh (PW-3) near the dead body of Kirpal Singh, he had come back to the house of Kirpal Singh, from where he had taken Bhajan Kaur, the wife of Kirpal Singh, for going to the Police Station and on the way at Patiala Crossing, Sangrur, the police met them and their statements were recorded. The incident pertains to the month of January. Keeping in view the weather, and the distance travelled by the witnesses, the delay in lodging the First Information Report, in the present case, is explained and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution in any manner. Moreover, non-mentioning of names of the accused in the DDR in which the substance of the FIR is required to be entered would not go to show that the FIR was recorded later on. Therefore, the omission to mention the name of the accused in the DDR will not be fatal if otherwise the evidence of the eye witnesses is found to be credible. Therefore, the contention of the learned defence counsel in this regard is also rejected. 15. Therefore, the omission to mention the name of the accused in the DDR will not be fatal if otherwise the evidence of the eye witnesses is found to be credible. Therefore, the contention of the learned defence counsel in this regard is also rejected. 15. The learned defence counsel further submitted that investigation in the present case has been tainted and in order to lend support to this contention, he has submitted that S.I. Kewal Krishan had not gone out of the police station, while appearing in the Court, he had admitted in his cross-examination that there is no entry regarding departure from Police Station on 16.1.1992 and during the course of his cross-examination, he has admitted that it is correct that it is not mentioned in the endorsement, Ex. PD/2, that Bhajan Kaur was made free after recording her statement, but in the document, Ex. PD, there is no mention of any accused. In the document, Ex. PC also, there is no mention regarding any accused Kewal Krishan (PW-12) has further admitted in his cross-examination that there is no entry regarding the departure, but there is an entry regarding receipt of ruqa. He has further clarified that there is also an entry regarding his arrival back in the police station. But all these facts put forward do not cause any dent in the prosecution version in view of the direct evidence available in the present case and as already discussed above, minor discrepancies would not change the truthful version put forward by the star witnesses of the prosecution. Even if there is any defect in the investigation, it is of no help to the present appellant in view of direct evidence available on the record. No accused can be acquitted merely on account of defective investigation particularly when direct evidence is available against the accused with regard to the commission of crime. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also submitted that accused Harchand Singh has not been connected with the gun alleged to have been recovered from his possession on the basis of disclosure statement made by him and in view of this, learned counsel has prayed that benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. 17. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also submitted that accused Harchand Singh has not been connected with the gun alleged to have been recovered from his possession on the basis of disclosure statement made by him and in view of this, learned counsel has prayed that benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. 17. We have considered the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard, but for the reasons to be recorded by us, the same is liable to be rejected. We find that Kewal Krishan, SI (PW-12), the Investigating Officer of the case, has categorically deposed that on 17.01.1992 during investigation of the case, he was informed by MHC Bhim Sain that accused Harchand Singh was SPO and he was issued rifle No.431/SGR of 7.62 bore and 25 live cartridges of the same bore. Besides this, Dev Raj (PW­ 9), who is a wine contractor, has deposed that in the year 1992-93 accused Harchand Singh was working as S.P.O. and in those days, he was deputed as S.P.O. at his liquorvend. Harchand Singh was issued rifle in the morning from the Police Station and he used to remain at the liquor vend at Bhawanigarh and in the morning, he used to go at the other liquorvend and used to deposit the rifle in the police station in the evening. It is true that the prosecution has not produced record from the Police Department regarding issuance of the rifle along with cartridges, but the factum of Harchand Singh accused working as spa vide order Ex. PK is not disputed in any manner. The deployment of accused Harchand Singh as S.P.O. at the liquorvend of Dev Raj (PW-9) with the fire arms and ammunition stands proved. Moreover, the recovery of rifle and cartridges took place at the instance of the accused. Head Constable Kashmir Singh (PW-11) has disclosed that he remained attached with Kewal Krishan, Sub Inspector (PW-12) throughout the investigation and the house where the occurrence had taken place, was on rent with accused Harchand Singh and he proves this fact on the basis of personal knowledge. He has further deposed that accused, being an employee of the Police Department, was known to him and that he was living on rent. He has further deposed that accused, being an employee of the Police Department, was known to him and that he was living on rent. Apart from this, during the course of cross­ examination, he further clarified about the status of Harchand Singh accused as a tenant and moreover, non-examination of the owner of the house will not weaken the case of the prosecution in any manner. If some lapses had been left out during the course of investigation, then at the cost of repetition, we would like to observe that when direct evidence of crime is available, then such types of lapses on the part of investigation would not hamper the case of the prosecution in any manner. 18. The ocular version is further corroborated by the medical evidence, which has been put forward by Dr. Rajiv Kumar (PW-1), who had found two injuries on the dead body of Kirpal Singh. One injury is an oval lacerated wound of 1cm x 7.5 cm on the left side of the neck just above the medial end of the left clavical and other injury an oval lacerated wound 3 cm x 2.5 cm on the left side of chest on the posterior surface 12 cm from the midline and 6 cm away from the posterior axillary fold on the left side and margins were everted. Injury No.1 was the wound of entry and injury No.2 was the wound of exist. As per this witness, the time elapsed between the injuries and the death was immediate and between death and the post mortem, it was within 24 hours. This witness has further clarified with regard to oval wounds that if angle of the gun is at 90 degree, the wound caused wound be circular in shape. It is not the case of the prosecution that the gun was at the angle of 90 degree of the body for which reason circular entry and exist wound should have appeared. After having gone through the statements of eye witnesses, namely, Bhagel Singh (PW-2) and Atma Singh (PW-3), we find that there are no serious contradictions between the medical and ocular version. The injury is not on the neck, but it is below the check on the chest portion. Therefore, the contention of the learned defence counsel that the medical evidence does not corroborate with the ocular evidence is without any force. The injury is not on the neck, but it is below the check on the chest portion. Therefore, the contention of the learned defence counsel that the medical evidence does not corroborate with the ocular evidence is without any force. Recovery of empty cartridges stands proved by the statement of Kewal Krishan, Sub- Inspector (PW-12), the Investigating officer of the case, as well as by Kashmir Singh, Head Constable (PW-11). One lead pellet of bullet was also recovered from near the dead body by Kewal Krishan, Sub Inspector (PW-12) and the Investigating officer had also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PS. The Investigating Officer also took into possession the plaster fallen from the wall due to the impact of the bullet and the same was made into parcel. The empty cartridge, Ex. P-15, was recovered from the spot and both Kashmir Singh, Head Constable (PW-11) and Kewal Krishan, Sub Inspector (PW-12) have proved that on 31.1.1992 when they were present near Patiala crossing, Sangrur, a secret information was received to the effect that Harchand Singh accused was coming from the side of Patiala Bye-pass towards Patiala Crossing, Sangrur, and accordingly, he was arrested near Government Raj Higher Secondary School, Sangrur by Kewal Krishan, Sub Inspector (PW-12). He made disclosure statement that he had kept concealed one rifle of 7.62 bore with Batt No.431 along with the bundle of 25 cartridges near the hollow space in the pond, which was known only to him and he could get the same recovered. The said statement of Harchand Singh accused was reduced into writing, which is Ex. PF, which was signed by Kewal Krishan, Sub Inspector and signed by accused Harchand Singh and also attested by Head Constable Kashmir Singh (PW-11). Thereafter, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, the rifle and the live cartridges were recovered from the place pointed out by accused Harchand Singh. Head Constable Kashmir Singh (PW-11) has corroborated the statement of Kewal Krishan, Sub Inspector (PW­ 12) and the recoveries of the gun and the cartridges stand established in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The contention of the learned defence counsel that the recovery effected from the open space is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. The contention of the learned defence counsel that the recovery effected from the open space is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. The entire case put forward by the prosecution on the basis of direct evidence, medical evidence and the recovery effected, from the accused clearly spells out that deceased Kirpal Singh died due to gun shot injury fired at him by accused Harchand Singh. Seen from every angle, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant fails and is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by Additional Sessions Judge (I), Sangrur, is affirmed. ————————