JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J.:- This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Appeal No.662-DB of 2003 filed by Kirpal Singh, Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 2004 filed by State of Punjab and Cd. Revision No. 2259 of 2003 filed by Sharan Kaur arising out of the judgment dated 26.7.2003 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Hoshiarpur vide which it convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant Kirpal Singh as under:­ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the convict Convicted for the offence Sentence awarded ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kirpal Singh under Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/­ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of one month. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kirpal Singh under Section 307 IPC RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/­ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of 15 days. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The trial Court, however, acquitted, accused Kulwinder Singh. 2. The facts in brief, are that Balwinder Singh, husband of Sharan Kaur slept in the chaubara of the house, which was situated, on the backside of the grocery and Halwai shops, owned by him, at bus stop Khuda, after taking the meals. The said chaubara was without any shutter. Sharan Kaur, however, slept with other family members on the ground floor, in a room. At about 2.30 a.m. on the night intervening 12/13.11.1997, she heard a knock at the door of the room in which she was sleeping. She thought that the door was being knocked by her husband and then she opened the same. The light, in the courtyard, was already glowing. When she opened the door, she found Kirpal Singh @ Lucky accused, armed with knife like chura. He inflicted injury with the same, on her abdomen, and another person, accompanying him, caught her by her arm. She raised alarm, saying ‘killed killed’ and her son Goldy and Sonu woke up. They could not identify the companion of Kirpal Singh, accused. It was further stated that she could identify that person, if shown to her. Both these persons fled by opening the main gate, in between the two shops. She raised alarm, saying ‘killed killed’ and her son Goldy and Sonu woke up. They could not identify the companion of Kirpal Singh, accused. It was further stated that she could identify that person, if shown to her. Both these persons fled by opening the main gate, in between the two shops. Sharan Kaur, complainant, went upstairs to see her husband, and she found her husband lying in a pool of blood, on the cot, and the blood was oozing out of his mouth and head. He was badly injured and was unable to speak. She called her two sons and sent them to call her brother-in-law Gurnam Singh and bring some vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant and her husband were removed by her sons and Gurnam Singh brother-in-law to Civil Hospital, Tanda, but on the way, her husband died. After giving first aid in Civil Hospital, Tanda, she was brought back to her house, along with the dead­body of her husband. 3. On receipt of the wireless message, Swaran Dass, SHO, Police Station, Dasuya, went to the house of the deceased, where he recorded the statement Ex.PG of Sharan Kaur narrating the aforesaid facts, on the basis whereof, FIR Ex.PG/2 was registered. Swaran Dass, SHO then prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Balwinder Singh. The dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Dasuya, for post-mortem examination. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence, was prepared, by Swaran Dass, SHO, Dasuya. He also lifted the blood stained earth, from the spot, which was converted into a parcel, duly sealed with the seal, and was taken into possession vide a separate memo. One spade was also lying at the place of occurrence, the blade whereof was blood stained, and was taken into possession through a separate memo, attested by the witnesses. A ladder was also taken into possession, vide a separate memo, attested by the witnesses. Daljit Singh, ASI, produced before him medico-legal report of Sharan Kaur along with one shirt and undershirt, which were sealed into a parcel, and taken into possession vide a separate recovery memo. After the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Balwinder Singh, Tarsem Lal, Constable, produced the clothes of the deceased, which were taken into possession vide a separate memo. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Accused, Kirpal Singh @ Lucky was arrested on 21.11.1997. 4. After the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Balwinder Singh, Tarsem Lal, Constable, produced the clothes of the deceased, which were taken into possession vide a separate memo. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Accused, Kirpal Singh @ Lucky was arrested on 21.11.1997. 4. It was stated that the motive for the occurrence was that the Halwai shop of Balwinder Singh, deceased, was having a roaring business, whereas, the Halwai Shop of Kirpal Singh, accused, was having a bleak business. Due to this reason, Kirpal Singh, acused was nourshing jealousy against Balwinder Singh. He, thus, committed the murder of Balwinder Singh and caused injuries on the person of Sharan Kaur. 5. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 6. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by Commitment, charge under Sections 302 and 307 IPC was framed against Kirpal Singh to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 7. Later on, an application was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C, for summoning accused Kulwinder Singh. That application was allowed and Kulwinder Singh was summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Fresh charge under Sections 302,302/34, 307, 307/34 IPC, was framed against both the accused. They pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 8. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Didar Singh, PW-1, Bhupinder Lal, Constable, PW-2, Dr. Naresh Kumar, PW-3, Sharan Kaur, PW-4, Surinder Kumar, PW-5, Daljit Singh, PW-6, Prem Singh, Head Constable, PW-7, Tajinder Kumar, Head Constable, PW­ 8, Swaran Dass, DSP, PW-9 and Paramjit Singh, SI, PW-10. Therafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 9. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. The accused also examined Nirmal Singh, DW-1, Ajaib Singh, DW-2, Lajpal Singh, DIG, DW-3 and Baljinder Singh Grewal, SP Vigilance, DW-4. Thereafter, the accused closed their defence evidence. 10. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. The accused also examined Nirmal Singh, DW-1, Ajaib Singh, DW-2, Lajpal Singh, DIG, DW-3 and Baljinder Singh Grewal, SP Vigilance, DW-4. Thereafter, the accused closed their defence evidence. 10. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced Kirpal Singh, accused, as stated herein before, whereas, it acquitted Kulwinder Singh, accused. 11. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, Kirpal Singh, appellant filed Crl. Appeal No. 662-DB of 2003, whereas, the State of Punjab filed Crl. Appeal No.535-DBA of 2004 against the acquittal of Kulwinder Singh, accused, and Smt. Sharan Kaur, complainant filed Crl. Revision No. 2259-DB of 2003 against the acquittal of Kulwinder Singh, accused. 12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 13. The learned Counsel for Kirpal Singh, appellant at the very outset contended, that the motive set up by the prosecution was falsified from the evidence produced on record. It was further contended that there was no evidence to show that anybody saw the accused proceeding to the chaubara where the deceased was allegedly sleeping. It was further contended that, on the other hand, the said chaubara could be approached from the place, where four servants/employees of the deceased were sleeping and those servants were not interrogated by the police. It was further contended that the statement made by Sharan Kaur, first in point of time, before Tanda Police, was intentionally withheld, as it did not inculpate the accused. It was further contended that it was also not clear whether the statement of Sharan Kaur was recorded by the SHO, P.S. Dasuya in the Hospital or at the spot. It was further contended that Sharan Kaur and Daljit Singh, being closely related to each other, are interested witnesses. It was further contended that since Sharan Kaur made improvements, on material and significant aspects of the case, in her statement, in the Court, over his previous statements, recorded during the course of investigation, she could not be said to be a trustworthy witness, but the trial Court was wrong in placing reliance on her evidence. It was further contended that since Sharan Kaur made improvements, on material and significant aspects of the case, in her statement, in the Court, over his previous statements, recorded during the course of investigation, she could not be said to be a trustworthy witness, but the trial Court was wrong in placing reliance on her evidence. It was further contended that the evidence of Daljit Singh, son of the deceased, only fell within the realm of res-ges-tae, as he came into picture, after his mother had suffered injuries. It was further contended that he also made improvements, in his statement, in the Court, on material and significant aspects of the case, over his previous statements, and, as such, he could not be said to be a creditworthy witness, but the trial Court wrongly placed reliance on his evidence. It was further contended that the first version, which was given by Sharan Kaur, after the occurrence, to Nirmal Singh, DW-1, a Punjab Home Guard volunteer posted in Police Post Khuda, located just near the place of occurrence, was that some unknown persons had committed the murder of Balwinder Singh, and caused injuries on her person. It was further contended that Nirmal Singh, was examined as DW-l, and he made a statement that Sharan Kaur, complainant, immediately after the occurrence, told him, that some unknown persons committed the crime. It was further contended that even the police officers of the rank of DIG, made enquiries in this case, on various occasions, as per the directions of the Court and came to the conclusion that it was false. It was further contended that the trial Court was, thus, wrong in recording conviction and awarding sentence to Kirpal Singh, accused, by placing reliance on the evidence of untrustworthy witnesses and wrongly disbelieved the defence evidence. 14. The Counsel for the respondent in Appeal No. 535-DB of 2004 and the Counsel for the revision-petitioner in revision petition No. 2259 of 2003, however, contended that since the police did not correctly record the statement of Sharan Kaur, on the basis whereof, the FIR was registered, she made a number of petitions, before the Courts and before the higher police authorities. It was further contended that, in these circumstances, the statement made by Sharan Kaur, in the Court, could be relied upon and her previous statements, could be ignored. It was further contended that, in these circumstances, the statement made by Sharan Kaur, in the Court, could be relied upon and her previous statements, could be ignored. They further contended that the trial Court was right in relying upon the evidence of trustworthy witnesses namely Sharan Kaur, and her son Daljit Singh. It was further contended that the trial Court was wrong in acquitting Kirpal Singh, one of the accused, though there was sufficient evidence against him to connect him, with the crime. Accordingly, it was contended that the judgment of acquittal vide which Kulwinder Singh was acquitted, by the trial Court, was liable to be set aside. 15. Sharan Kaur, complainant, when appeared as PW-4, no doubt stated that the police of Police Station, Tanda, reached the spot and her statement was recorded. She also stated that her statement was recorded by the police of Police Station, Dasuya, in Civil Hospital, Dasuya, whereas Swarn Dass, DSP stated that he recorded the statement of Sharan Kaur at the spot. As to whether, the statement of Sharan Kaur was recorded by the Police of Police Station, Tanda, or not, is a question that requires determination. It may be stated here, that Sharan Kaur was not very well conversant with the intricacies of law, and the procedural wrangles. Since Village Khuda, falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Tanda and a Police Post was also set up at Village Khuda, as soon as the occurrence took place, information was apparently sent to Police Station, Tanda. If some Police Officer of Police Station, Tanda came to the spot and made oral enquiries from Sharan Kaur, with regard to the occurrence, and went away, after coming to the conclusion that the place of occurrence, fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Dasuya, that did not mean that the statement of Sharan Kaur was recorded. Sharan Kaur might have thought that the facts stated by her to the police officer of Police Station, Tanda, were reduced into writing by him. It was, under this impression, that she stated that her statement was recorded by a police official of Police Station, Tanda when he reached the spot, on coming to know, about the occurrence. In fact, her statement was not recorded by the police of Police Station, Tanda. It was, under this impression, that she stated that her statement was recorded by a police official of Police Station, Tanda when he reached the spot, on coming to know, about the occurrence. In fact, her statement was not recorded by the police of Police Station, Tanda. Now, coming to the question, as to whether, the statement of Sharan Kaur with regard to the occurrence was recorded in Civil Hospital, Dasuya or at the spot. It may be stated here, that on account of the death of her husband, Sharan Kaur must be completely puzzled and confused. She was also injured in the same occurrence. Under those circumstances, it was not at all possible, for her, to remember the details, as to the place, where her statement was recorded, which ultimately formed, the basis of FIR. Dr. Didar Singh, PW-1, who medico-legally examined Sharan Kaur, injured, nowhere stated that after her admission, Sharan Kaur did not move out of the hospital. Sharan Kaur stated that she was referred to the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. It may be possible that while taking her to DMC, Ludhiana from Dasuya, her statement was recorded at the place of occurrence, which fell on the way. No evidence was produced, by the prosecution or the defence as to at what time she was referred to DMC, Ludhiana though, she was examined in Civil Hospital, Dasuya at 7.05 a.m. The possibility of the Investigating Officer, mentioning the place of recording her statement as Ralhan, instead of Civil Hospital, Dasuya, also could not be ruled out. It was held in State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony, 1985 (1)RCR (Crl.) 88, that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be, whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly, keeping in view the deficiencies, draw-backs and infirmities, pointed out, in the evidence, as a whole, and evaluate them to find out, whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence, given by the witness, and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies, on trivial matters, not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach, by taking sentences torn out in context here or there, from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the Investigating Officer, not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the Court before which the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion, about the general tenor of evidence, given by the witness, the appellate Court, which had not this benefit, will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court, and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable, it would not be proper to reject the evidence, on the ground of minor variations, or infirmities, in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses, may differ in some details, unrelated to the main incident, because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. The principle of law laid down in Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P, 1999(4) RCR (Crl.) 216 (SC) was to the effect that when an eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him/her to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non­discrepant. But Courts should bear in mind, that it is only when discrepancies, in the evidence of a witness, are so incompatible, with the credibility of his/her version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his/her evidence. But too serious a view, to be adopted, on mere variations, falling in the narration of an incident, either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness, is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. It was merely a trivial discrepancy which occurred, in the statement of Sharan Kaur and Swarn Dass, Prosecution witnesses. Whether her statement was recorded in Civil Hospital, Dasuya, or at the place of occurrence, could not be said to be such, a discrepancy, as could go to the root of the case. Even the trial Court, while appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion, that such a discrepancy, which occurred in the statement of the aforesaid witnesses did not affect the merits of the case. Even the trial Court, while appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion, that such a discrepancy, which occurred in the statement of the aforesaid witnesses did not affect the merits of the case. On re-appraisal of the evidence of these witnesses, this Court does not find any reason, to differ with the conclusion arrived at, by the trial Court, that such a discrepancy did not go to the root of the case, and the case of the prosecution did not become doubtful, on account of the said discrepancy. In this view of the matter, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 16. No doubt, the case of the prosecution was based on the statement of Sharan Kaur, PW-4, complainant-cum-injured and Daljit Singh, PW-6. The occurrence, in this case, took place, at the dead of night, in the house of Balwinder Singh (now deceased). The presence of the wife and son of Balwinder Singh, at that hour of night, in the house, was very much probable and natural. Nobody else than the wife and the son of the deceased, could be said to be the best witnesses, with regard to the occurrence. The evidence of the relation witnesses, cannot be doubted merely on account of relationship. In the face of evidence of the relation witnesses only, the Court is put on guard to scrutinize the same carefully and cautiously. The relation witnesses can be said to be the last persons, to leave the actual culprit and rope in an innocent person. In Hardev Singh Vs. Harbhej Singh and Syubha Singh Vs. Harbhej Singh and others, 1997 (1) Recent C.R. 395 it was held that the mere fact that the eye-witnesses were closely related to the deceased, especially when their presence, at the spot, was not doubted, was not sufficient to disbelieve their statements.The principle of law, laid down, in Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) Recent CR 309 was to the effect that a close relative, who is a natural witness, cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term “interested” postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused, somehow, or the other, convicted for some animus or for some other reason. State of Bihar 1996 (1) Recent CR 309 was to the effect that a close relative, who is a natural witness, cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term “interested” postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused, somehow, or the other, convicted for some animus or for some other reason. It also cannot be said that it would be unsafe to rely upon the evidence of a relation witness, to hold the accused guilty. In view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, the evidence of both these eye witnesses, as one of them namely Sharan Kaur, being stamped witness, having received injuries, in the same occurrence, could not be disbelieved in toto, merely on account of relationship, especially when the FIR was lodged within the shortest possible time. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, is rejected. 17. No doubt, there were improvements, in the statements of both Sharan Kaur and Daljit Singh, made by them, in the Court vis­a-vis their previous statements. Sharan Kaur, PW-4, stated that she got recorded in her statement Ex.PG, that on hearing the noise of someone coming down the stair case, she opened the door of her room. When her attention was drawn to her statement Ex. PG, this fact was not found specifically stated therein. She further deposed that she had not stated before the police in Ex. PG that at about 2.30 A.M. the door of her room was knocked and she thought that the door was knocked by her husband. When she was confronted with Ex. PG portion A to A-I, this fact was found recorded therein. She also stated that she did not remember whether she got recorded in application Ex.DA, that the accused was arrested on the same day, but his arrest was shown after 10/11 days. She further deposed that she had not got recorded in application Ex.DA that after recording her statement the police arrested Kirpal Singh and 2-3 more suspects, on the same day, and the Police showed his arrest on 21.11.1997. When she was confronted with portion A to A-1 of Ex.DA this fact was found recorded therein. She further deposed that she had not got recorded in application Ex.DA that after recording her statement the police arrested Kirpal Singh and 2-3 more suspects, on the same day, and the Police showed his arrest on 21.11.1997. When she was confronted with portion A to A-1 of Ex.DA this fact was found recorded therein. It was further deposed by her that she did not get recorded in Ex.DA that till now the police could not find any clue of the companion of Kirpal Singh nor arrested him. When she was confronted with portion B to B-1 of Ex.DA this fact was found recorded therein. She denied that she had got recorded in her statement before DSP Ajaib Singh, that at about 2.30 A.M. when the door of the room was knocked she opened the same and then Kirpal Singh @ Lucky who runs a halwai shop at Adda Khudda, who was accompanied by some unknown person, came there, and that immediately that unknown person caught hold her of her arm, and that Lucky gave her blow with knife like dagger, in her abdomen, and that she raised raula ‘Mar Ditta Mar Ditta’. When she was confronted with portion A to A-I of Ex. DG, this fact was found recorded therein. She further deposed that she had not got recorded, in her statement, that her sons went to the Chaubara to wake up her husband, and that they raised raula that papa was given chura blow by somebody. When she was confronted with portion B to B-1 in Ex. DG this fact was found recorded therein. She further deposed that she had not got recorded in Ex. DG, that Roshan Singh Electrician and two Punjab Home Guard Employees, also came. When she was confronted with portion C to C-I of Ex. DG this fact was found recorded therein. She, however, admitted that her son Sonu, Roshan Singh and two Punjab Home Guard Jawans, put her husband, in a van. She also deposed that she had made a statement to Mohinder Singh, SHO, Dasuya, that at about 2.30 a.m. door of her room was knocked and she understood that her husband had knocked the same and then she opened the door and one person entered her room with knife like dagger, caused injury in her abdomen and then she raised raula and thereafter her sons Goldy and Sonu woke up. She was also confronted with her statements recorded by other police officials during the enquiry which are Exs. PK, DL, DM and she was found to have made certain improvements and contradictions, over the same, in her statement in Court. Daljit Singh, PW-6, stated that he got recorded in his statement Ex.DB that his mother raised raula ‘Mar ditta Mar ditta’ and that he woke up. When his attention was drawn to Ex.DB this fact was not found recorded therein. He, however, explained that though he stated this fact before the Police but it did not record the same in Ex.DB. He deposed that he did not get recorded in Ex.DB that at 2.30 a.m. the door of their room, was knocked and his mother opened the same. When he was confronted with portion A to A-1 of Ex.DB, this fact was found recorded therein. He, however, explained that the police might have written this, in his statement of its own. He further deposed that he got recorded in Ex.DB, that accused Kulwinder Singh @ Neeta caught hold of her mother, from the arms. When his attention was drawn to Ex.DB, this fact was not found recorded therein. He further deposed that he got recorded in Ex.DB that on seeing him Kulwinder Singh @ Neeta ran away, he chased him, and caught hold of him whereas, he gave him a push, and he fell down. When his attention was drawn to Ex.DB, this fact was not found recorded therein. He denied the facts, mentioned in the statement Ex. DC, recorded by DSP Ajaib Singh. According to him, these officers had been incorporating wrong facts, in his statement according to their own choice. It may be stated here, that right from the very beginning, the case of Sharan Kaur, PW-4 who is the complainant-cum-injured was that her statements were not being recorded, by the police officials, correctly. On account of this reason, she addressed the application Ex.DA dated 15.12.1997 to the Chief Minister. After the completion of investigation by the DSP, she also filed writ petitions, from time to time, in the High Court to the effect, that her statements had not been recorded correctly, by the police officials, initially at the time of registration of the case, as also during the course of enquiries, conducted by them. After the completion of investigation by the DSP, she also filed writ petitions, from time to time, in the High Court to the effect, that her statements had not been recorded correctly, by the police officials, initially at the time of registration of the case, as also during the course of enquiries, conducted by them. It was, in the writ petitions, that directions were given by the High Court, that the investigation be conducted by the Crime Branch. It could, therefore, be said that the Police Officers, were not acting fairly and in a bonafide manner, during the course of investigation, and enquiries. They were not recording the statements of Sharan Kaur and Daljit Singh correctly. The record, with regard to the statements of these witnesses, thus, became suspect. In these circumstances, the previous statements made by these witnesses, during the course of investigation, and enquiries, which were not correctly recorded, could be ignored, and their evidence in the Court could be relied upon. It was held in Baladin and others Vs. State of Uttar Pardesh AIR 1956 SC 181 as under:- “Hence the record made by a police investigating officer, has to be considered, by the court only with a view to weighing the evidence actually adduced in Court. If the police record becomes suspect or unreliable on the ground that it was deliberately perfunctory or dishonest, it loses much of its value, and the Court in judging the case of a particular accused has to weigh the evidence given against him in Court, keeping in view the fact that the earlier statements of witnesses, as recorded by the police, is tainted record and has not as great a value as it otherwise would have in weighing all the material on the record as against each individual accused.” Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Chandra Kant Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1974 S.C. 220). In view of the principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid authorities, the substantive evidence of Sharan Kaur and Daljit, could not be ignored, as a whole, and the same could be acted upon, so far as, it was in consonance with the earlier version, given by them and ignored with regard to the implication of Kulwinder Singh. In view of the principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid authorities, the substantive evidence of Sharan Kaur and Daljit, could not be ignored, as a whole, and the same could be acted upon, so far as, it was in consonance with the earlier version, given by them and ignored with regard to the implication of Kulwinder Singh. The trial Court was, thus, right in relying upon the evidence of both these witnesses, in so far as, it was in consonance with their previous statements. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant that, the evidence of both these witnesses, being wholly unreliable, could not be acted upon, being devoid of merit is rejected. 18. In statement Ex. PG made by Sharan Kaur, first in point of time, on the basis whereof, the FIR was recorded, she in clear-cut terms, stated that her husband Balwinder Singh was sleeping, in the chaubara. At about 2.30 a.m., when the door of her room was knocked, she opened the door and found Kirpal Singh @ Lucky who runs a halwai shop, at Adda Khudda, accompanied by an unknown person, present there. She further stated that the unknown companion caught hold of her arm, and that Lucky gave her blow with knife like dagger, in her abdomen, and that she raised raula ‘Mar Ditta Mar Ditta’ when her sons Sonu and Goldy woke up and witnessed the occurrence. She further stated that she could not identify the second person. It was further stated by her, that when she went upstairs to see her husband, she found him lying in a pool of blood, on the cot, and the blood was oozing out of his mouth and head. He was badly injured and was unable to speak. When she appeared as, PW-4, in the Court, she reiterated the same version, besides the name of unknown person as Kulwinder Singh, who accompanied Kirpal Singh. In the subsequent statements made by her, before the enquiry officers, she named Kirpal Singh, who caused injuries on her person with knife. She also stated that immediately when she went upstairs she found her husband lying in a pool of blood, with injuries on his person. The presence of Kirpal Singh, who caused injuries, on the person of Sharan Kaur, on the night intervening 12/13.11.1997, in her house, was thus established. She also stated that immediately when she went upstairs she found her husband lying in a pool of blood, with injuries on his person. The presence of Kirpal Singh, who caused injuries, on the person of Sharan Kaur, on the night intervening 12/13.11.1997, in her house, was thus established. He was seen with knife, in his hand, at the scene of occurrence He caused injuries, on the person of Sharan Kaur. Immediately thereafter Balwinder Singh, husband of Sharan Kaur was found having injuries on his person, and lying in a pool of blood. It, therefore, could be safely held that it was Kirpal Singh, who caused injuries on the person of Balwinder Singh, as a result whereof he died. Dr. Naresh Kumar, PW-3, Civil Hospital, Dasuya stated that he conducted post­mortem, on the dead body of Balwinder Singh on 13.11.1997 and found the following injuries:­ “Lacerated wound 1.5 cm bone deep on left side of forehead. Placed transversly 2 cm above and lateral to the outer end of left eyebrow, medical to this wound, these was red coloured contusion with depressed surface, 3 x 4 cm in size. 1.5 cm above and parallel to left eye brow. On dissection, there was subaponeurotic haematoma in the both front regions. The frontal bone was found fractured into multiple pieces on both sides. These pieces were impacted into the underlying brain tissue after piercing the menings, causing laceration in the underlying brain tissue, semi clotted blood was present between bone and membrace, between membrances between membrance and brain tissue and within the brain tissue. 2. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm bone deep on left side of head, posterior to left pinna. It was transversally placed 2.5 cm below the upper end of left pinna. 3. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm on upper part of left pinna splitting the pinna into two parts. It was transversally placed in lines with injury No.2. The cause of death in this case was head injury which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The probable time between injury and death was about 3 hours and between death and post-mortem within 24 hours.” Not only this, Dr. The cause of death in this case was head injury which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The probable time between injury and death was about 3 hours and between death and post-mortem within 24 hours.” Not only this, Dr. Didar Singh, PW-1 medico-legally examined Sharan Kaur, wife of Balwinder Singh on 13.11.1997, at 7.05 A.M. and found the following injuries on her person:­ “Incised wound of 2½ x ½ cm elliptical shape present on left side of abdomen 2 cm above the umblicus and 6 cm lateral to mid-line. Oblique indirection clotted blood was present on wound and bleeds on touch. Probing not done. Case referred to surgical specialist for opinion and treatment. These were encircled and signed by me. Clothes were handed over to police (1) Kamiz and (2) Baniayan. The probable time of the injury was six hours. The trial Court found the injury on the person of Sharan Kaur as grievous in nature. “ 19. Further corroboration to the statement of Sharan Kaur and Daljit Singh is provided by the statement of Swaran Dass, PW-9, who took into possession a spade which was stained with blood, and the wearing apparels of the deceased, after post-mortem examination, by converting the same into a parcel. He also lifted the blood stained earth, from the place of occurrence. The Chemical Examiner found the earth lifted from the spot, Kahi (spade) lifted from the spot, Kachha of the deceased, and shamiz and kamiz of the injured, stained with blood. The serologist, vide his report Ex. PV found the banian of the deceased, stained with human blood. The trial Court, was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion that Kirpal Singh committed the murder of Balwinder Singh by causing injuries on his person with a spade, and made an attempt to cause the death of Sharan Kaur, by causing dangerous to life injuries, on her person, with a knife like dagger. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to this extent, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 20. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to this extent, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 20. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant was to the effect that it could not be imagined that a person after committing the murder of the husband of Sharan Kaur, would knock at the door of the room, in which she was sleeping, just to tell her that he had committed such an offence. Since, there was rivalry between the parties, on account of the reason that the business of Halwai of the deceased was roaring and the business of Kirpal Singh was bleak, he (Kirpal Singh) might be thinking to teach a lesson, to the entire family. It was under these circumstances, that he might have knocked at the door of the room, in which she was sleeping, to teach her a lesson, and when she came out, he caused injuries, on her person. Such a conduct of the accused, could not be said to be improbable. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 21. A ladder was also recovered, which was placed along the wall of the house of complainant, length of which was 13 feet, and the length of the wall along with which the said ladder was placed, was 18 feet. The length of the ladder will decrease by one or two feet, when placed slantingly along the wall. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, was that it was not possible for anybody to climb the roof of the house, through that ladder, and, as such, the prosecution story was improbable. This submission of the Counsel for the appellant is also not correct. Daljit Singh @ goldy, PW-6, during his cross-examination stated that the level of the road is higher to the extent of 10 feet from the foundation of their house. If this was the position, then if a ladder of 13 feet, was placed on that road, against the length of wall of 18 feet, then one could climb the chaubara of the house of the deceased easily through the ladder. In this view of the matter, the case of the prosecution, could not be said to be improbable. If this was the position, then if a ladder of 13 feet, was placed on that road, against the length of wall of 18 feet, then one could climb the chaubara of the house of the deceased easily through the ladder. In this view of the matter, the case of the prosecution, could not be said to be improbable. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 22. The trial Court was right, in holding that the statements of Sharan Kaur and Daljit Singh @ Goldy, with regard to the participation of Kulwinder Singh, in the commission of crime, were unreliable. Sharan Kaur, as stated above, is the widow of the deceased and Daljit Singh @ Goldy is his son. Had Kulwinder Singh been accompanying Kirpal Singh, at the time of occurrence, and had he held Sharan Kaur, by her arms, she would have certainly identified him, as both the accused, are related to the deceased and Sharan Kaur. If the witnesses identified Kulwinder Singh, why his name was not mentioned in the FIR, and in the statements made by them, during the course of investigation, and enquiries, is not known. No doubt, in their statements recorded, in the Court, they stated that Kulwinder, Singh @ Neeta, was also present, at the place of occurrence, he caught hold of Sharan Kaur by her arms, whereas, Kirpal Singh caused injuries with knife like dagger, on her person. Even, in the writ petition, filed by Sharan Kaur, the name of Kulwinder Singh was not mentioned. Therefore, an application for addition of his name, was moved, which was not allowed by the High Court and that writ petition was then withdrawn, and a fresh writ petition was filed wherein the name of Kulwinder Singh was mentioned. All these facts were, therefore, sufficient to come to the conclusion, that Kulwinder Singh @ Neeta, was falsely implicated, as he had no motive to commit the murder of Balwinder Singh. The conclusion of the trial Court, to the effect, that Kulwinder Singh @ Neeta did not participate in the commission of crime, is in consonance with the facts, circumstances and the evidence produced, on record. There is no reason, to interfere with the said conclusion, arrived at, by the trial Court. 23. The conclusion of the trial Court, to the effect, that Kulwinder Singh @ Neeta did not participate in the commission of crime, is in consonance with the facts, circumstances and the evidence produced, on record. There is no reason, to interfere with the said conclusion, arrived at, by the trial Court. 23. No doubt, it is the primary duty of the Investigating Agency to investigate the criminal cases. If during investigation, any person is found innocent, by the Investigating Agency, for whatever the reason may be, the Court is not required to accept such a conclusion blind-foldely. The statements of DW-l to DW-4, were pressed into service, to establish the innocence of Kirpal Singh. However, their statements as was rightly observed, by the trial Court, could not be relied upon, to come to such a conclusion. Nirmal Singh, DW -1, was posted at Police Post, Khuda, at the relevant time. He stated that he reached the place of occurrence immediately. He stated that he was told by the complainant that some un­ known persons, had caused injuries to the deceased. He further stated that she had not named the assailants. Swarn Dass, Inspector, Police Station, Dasuya, came to the spot, immediately after the occurrence and recorded the statement of Sharan Kaur. Sharan Kaur named Kirpal Singh as an accused, who committed the murder of her husband, and also caused injuries on her person. The Investigating Officer, also recorded the statements of Nirmal Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, Home guard volunteers. Had their version been found to be correct, then the Investigating Officer would not have recorded the FIR, and, on the other hand, made preliminary enquiries as per the Police Rules, before recording the FIR. Had Sharan Kaur told Nirmal Singh and Sukhwinder Singh that some un-known assailants, committed the murder of her husband, and caused injuries, on her person, then within a few minutes, it would not have been possible for her, to change her statement, Ex. PG, in which she named Kirpal Singh as the perpetrator of crime. It could not be imagined of a lady whose husband had been murdered, and even injuries were caused on her person by Kirpal Singh to change her stand, in her statement Ex. PG especially when she was puzzled and perplexed. PG, in which she named Kirpal Singh as the perpetrator of crime. It could not be imagined of a lady whose husband had been murdered, and even injuries were caused on her person by Kirpal Singh to change her stand, in her statement Ex. PG especially when she was puzzled and perplexed. The trial Court was, thus, right in holding that the officials like Nirmal Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, could be easily won over. DSP Ajaib Singh, DW-2, categorically stated that in the FIR Kirpal Singh was named as assailant. He recprded the statements of Daljit Singh @ Goldy Ex. DC, and that of Sharan Kaur Ex.DG, wherein the name of Kirpal Singh also figured as the perpetrator of crime. When the name of Kirpal Singh, was mentioned, as the perpetrator of crime, by both these witnesses, before Ajaib Singh, DSP, it was not known, as to under what circumstances, he submitted his report that the case was false. Lajpal Singh, DIG, DW-3, stated that the statements of Sharan Kaur, and Daljit Singh were recorded by DSP Jaspal Singh, but not in his presence. He further stated that he had gone through the statements, in which both the accused, were named as assailants, but despite that he found both of them to be innocent. His report is Ex.DB. On the basis of the said report ADGP Crime wrote a letter to the SSP Hoshiarpur. The said letter is Ex. DR. In case the ADGP came to the conclusion, that the accused named by Sharan Kaur and Daljit Singh were innocent, then the investigation should have been conducted, as to who were the actual accused, but they did not do so. Baljinder Singh Grewal, DW-4, who was the SP, Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda, gave his report Ex. DS. He admitted that Kirpal Singh was accused, who was named by the wife of the deceased. He stated that he did not examine any witness. He simply forwarded the report of the SHO to the SSP. The untraced report, submitted by the Police, was not accepted by the Ilaqa Magistrate. The complainant also filed writ petitions, as a result whereof, further investigation was ordered by the High Court, and Kirpal Singh was challaned. The evidence of Nirmal Singh, DW-I, Ajaib Singh, DW-2, Lajpal Singh, DIG, DW-3 and Baljinder Singh Grewal, DW-4, was not found to be reliable by the trial Court. The complainant also filed writ petitions, as a result whereof, further investigation was ordered by the High Court, and Kirpal Singh was challaned. The evidence of Nirmal Singh, DW-I, Ajaib Singh, DW-2, Lajpal Singh, DIG, DW-3 and Baljinder Singh Grewal, DW-4, was not found to be reliable by the trial Court. On re-appraisal of the evidence of these witnesses, as discussed hereinbefore, we are also of the considered opinion, that the same is unreliable and was rightly ignored by the trial Court. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, that the defence version was more probable, than the prosecution version, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 24. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore, Criminal Appeal No. 662-DB of 2003, filed by Kirpal Singh, is dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence qua him are upheld. 25. Criminal Appeal No. 535-DBA of 2004, filed by State of Punjab and the Criminal Revision No. 2259 of 2003 filed by Sharan Kaur against the judgment of acquittal of Kulwinder Singh, stand dismissed. 26. The bail bonds of Kirpal Singh are cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, is directed to take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply with the order of this Court with due promptitude. ------------------