Judgment H. S. BHALLA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23/24.10.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby he convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian penal Code. Appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default thereof, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Sec.324 of the Indian penal Code. He was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default thereof, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court was ordered to run concurrently. However, Satnam Kaur and Amar Kaur were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Accused Premi, co-accused of the appellant, was convicted under Sec.323 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. A separate appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.881-SB of 1997, has also been filed before this Court, which has to be heard by a single Bench of this Court. 2. The police machinery was set into motion on receipt of ruqa from the hospital with regard to the admission of Yogesh sharma. Police reached the hospital and after obtaining opinion of the doctor regarding condition of Yogesh Sharma, his statement was recorded and it was stated by him that on 23.10.1995 at about 9.30 p. M. , his son Ved Parkash was playing with fire crackers. He, his wife and Amar Chand were standing at some distance and his three daughters were sleeping inside the house. In the meantime, Premi, bhajji, Amar Kaur and Satnam Kaur, who reside in front of the house of complainant in Matu Ram Colony, Fatehabad, came armed with lathis, pipes etc. Accused Premi caught hold of Ved Parkash son of complainant by neck and expressed resentment regarding falling of fire crackers in their house and also asked him as to why he was making so much noise. At this, complainant, his wife Pushpa and amar Chand, neighbourer tried to bring him round, but in the meantime, Bhaji @ Harbhajan accused took out a knife from his pocket and inflicted knife blow on the left side of chest of Ved parkash, who fell down on the spot. At this, complainant, his wife Pushpa and amar Chand, neighbourer tried to bring him round, but in the meantime, Bhaji @ Harbhajan accused took out a knife from his pocket and inflicted knife blow on the left side of chest of Ved parkash, who fell down on the spot. Accused Premi gave a lathi blow on the right hand and back of the complainant, while Satnami gave a lathi blow on his legs. Bhajji accused inflicted knife blows on the right thigh, left arm, back and left hand of the complainant. On hearing the alarm raised by Pushpa and Amar Chand, Satpal and Matu Ram etc. reached the spot and accused absconded from the spot with their respective weapons. Bharat Singh removed the complainant and his son in an injured condition to the hospital, but Ved Parkash was declared dead in the hospital by the doctor. On the basis of this statement, a case was registered and the dead body of Ved Parkash was subjected to post mortem examination and later on, accused were arrested and they got recovered the weapon of offence in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the them and the same was taken into possession. On completion of necessary investigation, accused were sent up for trial. 3. Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 302/324/323 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eleven witnesses, namely, Dr. D. L. Bansal, Medical Officer, (PW-1), Dr. S. P. Mimani, DSMO (PW-2), Dr. N. Chakarwarti, Medical officer (PW-3), Mukesh Chand, Head Constable (PW-4), Ratan singh, Constable (PW-5), Krishan Kumar Panwar, Draftsman (PW-6), Yogesh Sharma (PW-7), Pushpa Devi (PW-8), Davender Kumar, sub Inspector (PW-9), Atma Ram, Head Constable (PW-10) and vijay Singh, Constable (PW-11) and closed its evidence. In his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused denied all the allegations levelled against him. Accused pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case minutely. It is a case of direct evidence and before proceeding further, we would like to peep through the evidence put forward by the prosecution against the appellant. 5. Dr. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case minutely. It is a case of direct evidence and before proceeding further, we would like to peep through the evidence put forward by the prosecution against the appellant. 5. Dr. D. L. Bansal, stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and categorically deposed that he medico-legally examined complainant-injured Yogesh Sharma and found five injuries on his person. He declared injury No.1 to have been caused by blunt edged weapon and remaining was caused by sharp edged weapon. He proved medico-legal report Ex. PA and this witness sent ruqa, Ex. PB, to the police station regarding admission of this stamped witness. He also sent ruqa regarding the dead body of Ved Parkash, which was brought to the Civil Hospital. Dr. S. P. Mimani (PW-2)radiologically examined injured Yogesh Sharma and he did not find any bone injury on the skull and left scapula. Dr. N. Chakrawarti (PW-3) conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of ved Parkash son of Yogesh and opined that the cause of death was due to the injury to the vital organ heart, leading to shock and haemorrhage. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Yogesh sharma stepped into the witness box as PW-7, who was also injured at the spot and he has narrated the occurrence and also proved his statement, Ex. PN, made by him to the police. Pushpa Devi (PW-8) is the wife of the complainant and she has also put forward ocular version given by her and has advanced the case of the prosecution. Devender Kumar, Sub Inspector, PTC, Madhuban, stepped into the witness box as PW-9, who deposed that on 24.10.1995 he was present along with other police officials on the intervening night of 23/24.10.1995. Ruqa, Ex. PB and PC, were received from the civil hospital and thereafter, he reached the hospital; moved an application, Ex. PD, and sought opinion of the doctor regarding condition of the injured. Thereafter, he recorded the statement, ex. PN, of the injured. He made his endorsement, Ex. PN/1 and sent the same to the Police Station for registration of the case, on the basis of which, formal FIR, Ex. PN/2 was recorded by Karan Singh, sub Inspector. 6. Shanti was examined as DW-1. Thereafter, he recorded the statement, ex. PN, of the injured. He made his endorsement, Ex. PN/1 and sent the same to the Police Station for registration of the case, on the basis of which, formal FIR, Ex. PN/2 was recorded by Karan Singh, sub Inspector. 6. Shanti was examined as DW-1. She disclosed that harbhajan accused is her brother. He used to exhibit cycle shop as he is an artist. Harbhajan Singh was present in her house. He had come to her two days before the Diwali with sweet and clothes from her parents house. In fact, Police had arrested Harbhajan on the next day of Diwali from his house in village Majra. Krishan Kumar (DW-2) has also stated that on the previous Diwali, he and Ramesh kumar were playing with crackers upto 11.00 P. M. They were present in the street. His house is located at a distance of 300 yards from the house of Yogesh Sharma on the next street parallel to the street in which deceased was residing. They were playing the crackers in the Shamilat chowk. He did not hear any voice of crying in the vicinity/street at that time. He has also deposed that there was no light in the street at that time and this condition remained as such throughout the night. The entire case of the prosecution has to be examined in the light of the evidence brought on the record. 7. It is crystal clear that Ved Parkash was murdered on 23.10.1995 at about 9.30 A. M. Copy of the post mortem report,ex. PF, is also proved from the testimony of Dr. N. Chakrawarti. His evidence further spells out that that Yogesh Sharma complainant also suffered injuries and the accused are the neighbourers and their house is located in front of the house of the complainant. PF, is also proved from the testimony of Dr. N. Chakrawarti. His evidence further spells out that that Yogesh Sharma complainant also suffered injuries and the accused are the neighbourers and their house is located in front of the house of the complainant. There is nothing on record to show that there is any enmity between the parties and the quarrel took place over the fire crackers, because pieces of fire crackers, which were being fired by Ved Parkash, were falling in the house of the accused to which the accused party objected and on account of this objection, at the first instance, accused Premi came out of the house and caught hold of Ved parkash by neck and asked him as to why he was making noise and also told him that fire crackers are falling to their house. This version of the prosecution, discussed above, rests on the testimony of complainant Yogesh Sharma (PW-7) and Pushpa Devi (PW-8), who were standing outside their house at a distance of 10 or 15 feet from their son Ved Parkash and the again Amar Chand, neighbourer, was also standing there, but he was not examined by the prosecution. The learned defence counsel, while referring to the statements of Yogesh Sharma (PW-7) and Pushpa Devi (PW-8), vehemently argued that both these witnesses are related to the deceased and are interested in the success of the prosecution, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statements of these interested witnesses. 8. We have considered this contention, but the same does not cut any ice with us, inasmuch as, 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 instant case accused Harbhajan alias Bhajji and Premi have taken the plea of alibi, but they have not been able to prove the same by way of any cogent evidence. The statement of accused Harbhajan to the effect that he was not present at the place of occurrence and was present at the house of his sister does not find corroboration from any evidence except for the statement of Shanti (DW-1 ). The statement of accused Harbhajan to the effect that he was not present at the place of occurrence and was present at the house of his sister does not find corroboration from any evidence except for the statement of Shanti (DW-1 ). Moreover, after having gone through the statement of the prosecution witnesses, I find that it was not suggested to the prosecution witnesses that Harbhajan accused was present at the house of his sister on the date of occurrence. Moreover, Yogesh Sharma (PW-7) suffered injuries at the spot. He will always be in his endeavour to bring the real culprit to book. Yogesh Sharma (PW-7) has categorically deposed that he caused injuries with a knife on his right thigh, left hand, back and left hand thumb etc. A similar statement has been made by accused Premi to the effect that he was not present at the place of occurrence and that he had gone away to Samalkha in connection with his business regarding selling of Ayurvedic medicines is not supported by any cogent evidence. No evidence has been led by the accused to substantiate his plea of alibi. It is well settled law that if the accused fails to prove his plea of alibi, he will be presumed to be present at the place of occurrence and there is nothing to disbelieve the sworn testimony of stamped witness Yogesh Sharma, who was examined as PW-7. Faced with this situation, the learned defence counsel submits that there was no street light in the colony and during night time, prosecution witnesses were not able to see the culprits and it is also submitted that the Investigating officer has not lifted any blood stained earth from the spot and this fact goes to show that the occurrence has not taken place in street. This contention of the learned defence counsel is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection since I find from the evidence available on the record that the place of occurrence is a street and there was sufficient light in the street due to electric bulb on the occasion of Diwali in the house of the complainant and in the adjoining houses. The occurrence took place at 9.30 P. M. on the night of Diwali and in this night, lot of people must be crossing the street and the question of any blood stained earth does not arise. Since number of people must be coming and going in the street, which was a thorough fare, the blood stained earth could not be preserved till the Investigating Officer reached the spot at 3.00 A. M. Moreover, Krishan Kumar (DW-2) has categorically admitted during the course of cross-examination that there was light of Deepak (Dia) and candles and there was sufficient light on that night. He has also admitted that the lights in the houses due to Diwali festival and thus, the place of occurrence was fully visible to the eye witnesses at the time of occurrence. Both Yogesh sharma (PW-7) and Pushpa Devi (PW-8) have deposed in a similar fashion. They have corroborated the statements of each other on all material particulars, particularly with regard to the role played by accused Harbhajan. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements and they inspire confidence. It is true that some minor contradictions are bound to occur when the witnesses depose before the Court truthfully as they have been pointed out by the learned defence counsel during the course of arguments, but they have been rightly over-looked by the learned trial Judge since they do not materially affect the prosecution case and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. 9. It has rightly been observed by the learned Additional sessions Judge that the other accused namely, Premi was not having any knowledge that Harbhajan @ Bhajji was armed with a knife and Harbhajan Singh took out the knife at the spot from his pocket. Pushpa Devi (PW-8) has also stated about this fact and according to the version of these witnesses, namely Yogesh Sharma (PW-7) and Pushpa Devi (PW-8), accused, namely, Amro, Satnami and Premi have not caused any injury on the person of Ved Parkash deceased. These witnesses have stated about the infliction of injuries by these accused on the person of Yogesh complainant. The lathi blow on the head of Yogesh Sharma (PW-7) is attributed to Premi accused and as per the medico-legal report, this injury has been found on the head of Yogesh Sharma by Dr. D. L. Bansal, who has been examined as PW -. The lathi blow on the head of Yogesh Sharma (PW-7) is attributed to Premi accused and as per the medico-legal report, this injury has been found on the head of Yogesh Sharma by Dr. D. L. Bansal, who has been examined as PW -. No injury on the legs which is attributed to satnami has been found. Neither any injury on the right hand and back of Yogesh has been found and these injuries were attributed to amro accused. In such like circumstances, the learned Additional sessions Judge has rightly concluded that there is no consistency in the statements of the eye witnesses and medical evidence and as such, the only irresistible inference that can be drawn is that Satnami and Amro accused have not participated in the occurrence and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The evidence further spells out read with FIR that first of all accused Premi had come and he caught hold the deceased from his neck and expressed resentment about playing of crackers by him. He asked him as to why he was making a noise and also told him about fire crackers are falling in their house and thereafter, Yogesh Sharma (PW-7) and Pushpa Devi (PW-8) tried to pacify the accused. Meaning thereby that they had talked to Premi accused and then Harbhajan accused appeared and he has not come to the spot with a knife. Rather, he took out the knife from the pocket. Accused Premi has not caused any injury to ved Parkash deceased. It is no where version of the prosecution witnesses that Premi did not allow the prosecution witnesses to rescue Ved Parkash deceased. Therefore in such like circumstances, the question of common intention on the part of premi accused does not arise and they both are liable for the individual acts. As per the prosecution case, only one injury on the head of Yogesh Sharma is attributed to accused Premi and that injury was found simple, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions judge has rightly concluded that accused Premi has committed offence under Sec.323 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the other accused Harbhajan gave blow with a knife, which was deadly weapon, on the vital part of the chest of Ved Parkash deceased. Dr. N. Chakrawarti (PW-3) has categorically deposed that punctured wound on the chest was heart deep. Dr. N. Chakrawarti (PW-3) has categorically deposed that punctured wound on the chest was heart deep. The pleural cavity and pericardial cavity were full of blood and two more injuries on the chest were found and the same were incised wound. Pushpa Devi (PW-8) has categorically deposed that three blows were given and this part of the statement has not been challenged in crossexamination. Dr. N. Chakrawarti (PW-3) has categorically deposed that cause of death was due to injuries on the vital organ, i. e. , heart leading to shock and haemorrhage etc. The case of Harbhajan @ bhajji accused does not fall under section 304 Part-II of the Indian penal Code since he has given three blows on the chest and the vital organs were involved. Repeated injuries with the knife do spell out that the accused had intention to kill Ved Parkash. Moreover, Yogesh sharma (PW-7) also suffered knife blows at the hands of accused harbhajan, but these injuries were found simple in nature. Seen from every angle, the case of the prosecution against the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal filed by the appellant fails and is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is affirmed.