Judgment H. S. BHALLA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.3.1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby he convicted the appellant under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default thereof, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, Mahesh, coaccused of the appellant, has been acquitted of the charge framed against him. 2. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under:- Dharminder Singh alias Billa (deceased) was the son of the daughter of Pritam Singh (PW-8) and used to reside at Khanna in a street near the residence of Pritam Singh. On 23.10.1995 both the accused and Dharminder Singh deceased were quarrelling with each other in the area of Mohalla Balala, Khanna. Pritam Singh (PW-8) on hearing the noise, came to that place. In the meanwhile, Surinder singh (PW-9) also came there. Both of them pacified the quarrelling parties. While they left the spot and were just a short distance away, mahesh accused caught hold of Dharminder Singh and Bimal accused stabbed Dharminder Singh with a knife in the chest. Dharminder Singh fell down on receipt of the injury and both the accused fled away carrying the weapon. Dharminder Singh was taken to the hospital, but was declared dead. Leaving Surinder Singh (PW-9) by the side of the dead body Pritam Singh (PW-8) went to the police Station to lodge a report. A Police party headed by Sub inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-10) met him in the old vegetable market Khanna. Pritam Singh (PW-8) made the statement, Ex. PK, which was read over to him and he signed the same in token of its correctness. Bhupinder Singh, Sub Inspector, (PW-10) made endorsement, Ex. PK/1, and transmitted the same to the Police station, where a formal FIR, Ex. PK/2, was registered and a copy of the same was sent to the Magistrate as a Special Report. Bhupinder singh Sub Inspector (PW-10) went to the place of occurrence and immediately thereafter went to the Civil Hospital, Khanna where the dead body of Dharminder Singh alias Billa was lying in the mortuary. Bhupinder Singh Sub Inspector (PW-10) prepared inquest report, Ex. PD, and deputed Sukhdev Singh Constable for getting post mortem conducted. Bhupinder singh Sub Inspector (PW-10) went to the place of occurrence and immediately thereafter went to the Civil Hospital, Khanna where the dead body of Dharminder Singh alias Billa was lying in the mortuary. Bhupinder Singh Sub Inspector (PW-10) prepared inquest report, Ex. PD, and deputed Sukhdev Singh Constable for getting post mortem conducted. Bhupinder Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-10) came back to the place of occurrence and took into possession blood stained earth by converting it into a sealed parcel. A visual site plan, Ex. PM, was prepared showing the place of occurrence. 3 On 1.11.1995 Mukha Ram produced accused Bimal before Bhupinder Singh, Sub Inspector. Accused was arrested and on interrogation, suffered a disclosure statement that he had thrown a knife on the roof of the Rehri used for preparing and selling tea. In pursuance of his statement, Ex. PM, accused led the police party and got recovered a knife, Ex. P-1, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PO. On completion of necessary investigation, accused was sent up for trial. 4. Accused was charge sheeted under section 302 of the indian Penal code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely, Dr. N. C. Jain (PW-1), Dr. N. K. Singla (PW-2), Budh Singh Grewal (PW-3), Head Constable Manjit Singh (PW-4), Constable Dev Raj (PW-5), Constable Tejwant Singh (PW-6), Constable Hardial Singh (PW-7), Pritam Singh, Ration Depot holder (PW-8), Surinder Singh (PW-9) and Sub Inspector Bhupinder singh (PW-10) and closed its evidence. 5. Statement of the accused under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein he denied all the prosecution allegations levelled against him. Accused pleaded that he is innocent and has been implicated falsely in this case. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. It is a case of direct evidence and the entire case of the prosecution revolves around the statement of Pritam Singh, Ration depot Holder (PW-8), Surinder Singh (PW-9 ). Both have deposed in a similar fashion and we find that the statements of these two witnesses are to the effect that Bimal Kumar accused gave a fatal knife blow on the chest of Dharminder Singh @ Billa. Both have deposed in a similar fashion and we find that the statements of these two witnesses are to the effect that Bimal Kumar accused gave a fatal knife blow on the chest of Dharminder Singh @ Billa. The nature of the injuries has been disclosed by doctor N. K. Singla, who stepped into the witness box as PW-2 and this Medical Officer conducted an autopsy on the dead body of Dharminder Singh @ Billa and he detected the following injuries on the dead body of deceased:- " Spinal shape stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm (centre), lying on the right side of lower part of chest, 7 cm, below and 3 cm. inner from the right nipple, Margins were ragged on outer side and sharp on the inner side. On exploration: Wound was going up and inner-wards causing injury to the muscles of the chest, then the pericardium by torn and the corresponding part were punctured. Chest and pericardium cavity were full of blood " 6 This doctor has categorically deposed that probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate and between death and post mortem during 24 hours and cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock on account of injury described above, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature. The medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular account. The injury was on the right side of lower part of the chest, which could be caused with knife. Moreover, the weapon of offence (Knife), Ex. P-1, was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by accused Bimal kumar. Dr. N. K. Singla (PW-2) has also stated that possibility of the deceased having been stabbed with the same is there. The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution advances the case of the prosecution and is also in conformity with the ocular account. Occurrence took place at about 8.30 P. M. and the deceased was taken to Civil Hospital by Pritam Singh (PW-8) and Surinder Singh (PW-9 ). It is in the statement of Dr. N. C. Jain (PW-1) that dharminder was brought at about 9.00 P. M. on 23.10.1995. FIR was lodged by Pritam Singh (PW-8) and his statement, Ex. PK was concluded by Bhupinder Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-10) at 10.15 P. M. Formal FIR, Ex. It is in the statement of Dr. N. C. Jain (PW-1) that dharminder was brought at about 9.00 P. M. on 23.10.1995. FIR was lodged by Pritam Singh (PW-8) and his statement, Ex. PK was concluded by Bhupinder Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-10) at 10.15 P. M. Formal FIR, Ex. PK/2, was recorded in the Police Station and it was concluded at 11.10 P. M. Special report was taken by Constable hardial Singh (PW-7), who tendered his affidavit, Ex. PJ in this regard. During the course of cross-examination, he has stated that he had returned to the Police Station at about 12.30/1.00 A. M. (mid night) after delivering the special report. In view of this fact, the learned defence counsel has submitted that the statement of Hardial singh ( PW-7) is apparently false and the later delivery of special report clearly spells out that the First Information Report, Ex. PK/2, is not the spontaneous version of Pritam Singh (PW-8), but it was prepared on the morning of 24.10.1995 after due deliberations and then it was ante-timed, but this fact alone cannot cause any dent in the prosecution version even if there is a delay in receipt of the special report by the Magistrate and the statement of Hardial Singh (PW-7) is against the fact and the possibility of the First Information report having been registered at any time later than recorded therein cannot be ruled out. This fact alone does not create any suspicion around the prosecution version and moreover the ocular account furnished by Pritam Singh (PW-8) and Surinder Singh (PW-9) cannot be thrown out on this short ground alone. Their presence at the spot is natural and they have put forward the truthful version seen by them at the spot. After having gone through the statements of Pritam Singh (PW-8) and Surinder Singh (PW-9), we find that their presence is not doubtful at the spot. Pritam Singh (PW-8) is the maternal grand father of the deceased and used to reside in the nearby street. According to the statement of this witness, he heard a noise and came to the place of occurrence where he found both the accused and Dharminder Singh quarrelling with each other. He and surinder Singh (PW-9) pacified them and when they had just gone short distance, Dharminder Singh was stabbed by Bimal accused. According to the statement of this witness, he heard a noise and came to the place of occurrence where he found both the accused and Dharminder Singh quarrelling with each other. He and surinder Singh (PW-9) pacified them and when they had just gone short distance, Dharminder Singh was stabbed by Bimal accused. Dharminder Singh was removed to the Civil Hospital Khanna and the memo, Ex. PA, was sent by Dr. N. C. Jain (PW-1) regarding his admission in the Police Station, which clearly proves on record that dharminder was brought to Civil Hospital at 9.00 P. M. Faced with this situation, the learned defence counsel submitted that Memo Ex. PA has been fabricated, but this contention does not cut any ice with us since there is no reason for Dr. N. C. Jain (PW-1) to fabricate the document. There is nothing on record to spell out that the statement, ex. PK, of Pritam Singh (PW-8) is the result of deliberations and consultations. Bhupinder Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-10) has categorically deposed that memo, Ex. PA, was never received in the police Station and it was handed over to him in the hospital by a class IV employee of the hospital. We find that this memo, Ex. PA, proves on record that the occurrence took place at the stated time, i. e. , 8.30 P. M. and Surinder Singh (PW-9) has not been introduced at a later stage. The occurrence took place on the night of Diwali and as such Pritam Singh (PW-8) and Surinder Singh (PW-9) came to their respective houses out of curiosity and then they pacified the quarrelling parties. The presence of Surinder Singh (PW-9) at the place of occurrence is not doubtful and rather his statement inspires confidence and both these two witnesses have stood to the test of cross-examination. They both cross-examined at length by the learned defence counsel, but nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of defence and they stuck to their stand with regard to the ocular version put forward by them. According to the statement of surinder Singh (PW-9) he resides in the house at a distance of about 150 yards from the place of occurrence. He is working as Assistant lineman in the Punjab State Electricity Board and has no relationship with the deceased and nor he had inimical towards the accused. According to the statement of surinder Singh (PW-9) he resides in the house at a distance of about 150 yards from the place of occurrence. He is working as Assistant lineman in the Punjab State Electricity Board and has no relationship with the deceased and nor he had inimical towards the accused. He disclosed that he heard the noise and saw the accused and dharminder Singh quarrelling with each other. Dharminder Singh was seriously injured and Surinder Singh along with Pritam Singh took him to the Civil hospital, where he was declared brought dead. In the memo, Ex. PA, sent by Dr. N. C. Jain (PW-1), it was specifically mentioned by the doctor that Dharminder Singh was brought dead by surinder Singh (PW-9 ). This fact proves the presence of Surinder singh (PW-9) at the time of place of occurrence. 7. The learned defence counsel has also submitted that since Dharminder Singh deceased was the son of the daughter of pritam Singh (PW-8), therefore, no reliance should be placed on this interested witness since he is bound to toe the line of the prosecution with regard to the false implication of the accused and this contention does not cut any ice with us. 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. From the evidence discussed above, it is apparent that the presence of Pritam Singh (PW-8) at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted, inasmuch as, he has seen the occurrence from his own eyes. His testimony cannot be thrown away only on this ground that he is a relative of the deceased and is always interested in the success of the prosecution case. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that no strong motive has been provided by the prosecution for the commission of the crime. Learned counsel has further submitted that even if an altercation had taken place over the playing of crackers by the deceased on the eve of festival of Diwali and the pieces of which fell on the house of the accused, which was objected to by them, as alleged by the prosecution, even then this is not such a motive, which could result in the murder of the deceased. We have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the same has been scrutinized by us in view of the evidence available on record. The contention of the learned counsel regarding motive part is liable to be rejected and the appellant is not entitled to acquittal merely on this short ground alone, because we are of the opinion 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, as has been discussed above. We would also like to observe that delay with regard to special report in the instant case does not cause a cloud of suspicion on the prosecution version and every case is to depend upon the variety of factors. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive to implicate the accused and moreover, prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution. The witnesses cannot be called upon to examine every hour s delay and every case is to be decided in view of its own peculiar facts. In Pala singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 2679, it has been observed by this Court that some delay in receipt of the special report by the Ilaqa Magistrate does not make the investigation tainted. In Pala singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 2679, it has been observed by this Court that some delay in receipt of the special report by the Ilaqa Magistrate does not make the investigation tainted. Similar was the view expressed in Sarwan Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2304, wherein it has been held that delay in dispatch of the First Information Report is not a substance, which can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety. Moreover, sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate as required under section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a check on the working of the police agency, imposed by law and the delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful but may put the court on guard to find out as to whether the version as stated in the court was the same version as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of deliberations involving some other persons who were actually not involved in the commission of the crime. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, we find that there is no inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence. The ocular evidence is cogent, credible and is also supported by medical evidence and the witnesses, namely, Pritam singh (PW-8) and Surinder Singh (PW-9) are found to be trustworthy and reliable. We feel that their testimony is confident to hold the real culprits guilty of the commission of the crime. There is no denial of the fact , as it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the aforementioned witnesses had come on the spot and had seen the occurrence. 9. In view of the discussions made above, prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal filed by the appellant fails and is dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is affirmed.