Judgment SHAM SUNDER, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Appeal No.277-DB of 2000, filed by Parmeshwar Singh and, Crl. Revision No.712 of 2000, filed by Avtar singh, arising out of the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 24-2-2000, rendered by the Court of Sessions judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which it convicted and sentenced him, as under : names of the accused (now appellant)The offence for which conviction was recorded. Sentence awarded parmeshwar Singh u/s.302 IPC u/s.324 IPC life Imprisonment. Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Fine of Rs.500. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the substantive sentences of the accused were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as summarized, proceeded in the manner that on 10-6-1999, avtar Singh, complainant, who was employed as teacher in Denowal Kalan High school, was present in the Marriage Palace (Jang-ghar), situated in village Moela wahidpur, at about 11.00 a. m. Sansar singh, his father, Pakhar Singh son of Mehar singh, Bishan Lal son of Rikhi Ram, and dilbag son of Nama Ram, were also sitting on a cot in that marriage palace (Jhang-ghar ). In the meanwhile, Parmeshwar Singh nihang alias Rabb son of Dalip Singh of their village, came there, armed with a spear. He told the persons, sitting there, to leave that place, as he was to kill Sansar Singh, father of Avtar Singh. The accused gave two spear blows, one on the left side of the chest and the other near the ankle of right leg of Sansar singh. On receipt of the injuries. Sansar singh, fell down on the cot. Avtar Singh, complainant, along with Dilbag Singh, tried to apprehend Parmeshwar Singh, accused. Upon this, Parmeshwar Singh, accused aimed a spear blow on the person of Dilbag singh, with an intention to kill him. which was warded off by him (Dilbag Singh), by raising his hand, and the same fell on his left arm. The people from the adjoining houses, assembled there. Parmeshwar Singh nihang ran away along with his spear. Many persons chased Parmeshwar Singh, to apprehend him. Avtar Singh, complainant, and nirmal Dass son of Nama Ram, who had also come to the spot, on hearing alarm, removed sansar Singh and Dilbag Singh, to Civil hospital, Garhshankar, after arranging some vehicle. The people from the adjoining houses, assembled there. Parmeshwar Singh nihang ran away along with his spear. Many persons chased Parmeshwar Singh, to apprehend him. Avtar Singh, complainant, and nirmal Dass son of Nama Ram, who had also come to the spot, on hearing alarm, removed sansar Singh and Dilbag Singh, to Civil hospital, Garhshankar, after arranging some vehicle. Sansar Singh was declared dead, whereas, Dilbag Singh was admitted in Civil hospital, Garhshankar.2-A. The motive for the occurrence, was that Sarwan Singh and Bikkar Singh son of jagat Singh, who were cultivating the land of Avtar Singh, complainant, had some dispute with Parmeshwar Singh, accused. In that dispute, Sansar Singh was helping sarwan Singh and Bikkar Singh. Parmeshwar Singh, accused, on account of this reason, had a grudge against Sansar Singh, and, thus, he committed his murder.2-B. On receipt of a chit from Civil hospital, Garhshankar, on 10-6-1999, Manjit singh, Sub Inspector, along with Nirmaljit singh, Sub Inspector, and other Police officials reached the said hospital. The dead body of Sansar Singh was lying in the dead house. Avtar Singh, complainant met Manjit singh, Sub Inspector. He recorded his statement Ex. P. O. containing the aforesaid facts. Avtar Singh, complainant, after admitting the same to be correct, signed it in Punjabi, on the basis whereof, FIR Ex. PO/2 was registered. Inquest report Ex. PC of the dead body of Sansar Singh was prepared. The dead body of Sansar Singh was sent to the doctor, for post-mortem examination, vide request Ex. PB.2-C. The doctor conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sansar singh. On the same day i. e.10-6-1999 at 3.00 p. m. Bidhi Chand, and Madan Lal, member Panchayats of the village produced parmeshwar Singh, accused, before Manjit singh, Sub Inspector, in injured condition. Manjit Singh, Sub Inspector sent Davinder singh, Head Constable, with the accused, for first aid and after giving the same, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur by the doctor. The accused was taken to Civil hospital, Hoshiarpur, under the supervision of Balbir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, where he was medico-legally examined. Manjit Singh, Sub Inspector, inspected the spot and prepared the rough site plan Ex. PQ. He took into possession blood stained cot from the spot vide recovery memo Ex. PR. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. Manjit Singh, Sub Inspector, inspected the spot and prepared the rough site plan Ex. PQ. He took into possession blood stained cot from the spot vide recovery memo Ex. PR. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the committing Court, the accused was supplied the copies of all the documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, charge under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Devinder Kumar, Medical officer, Civil Hospital, Garhshankar, (P. W.1), who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Sansar Singh son of labh Singh, resident of Wahid Pur, Dr. Narinder Kumar, Medical Officer, (P. W.2), who medicolegally examined Dilbag Singh, injured and Parmeshwar Singh, accused on 10-6-1999, Dr. Gian Chand, Medical Officer, civil Hospital, Garhshankar, (P. W.3), who was a member of the Medical Board, which conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sansar Singh, Satnam singh, Constable. (P. W.4), Balbir Singh, assistant Sub Inspector, (P. W.5), Avtar Singh, complainant, (P. W.6 ). Dilbag Singh, injured, (P. W.7), Manjit Singh, Sub Inspector, (P. W.8) and Ajay Singh, Sub Inspector, (P. W.9), who prepared the challan. Thereafter, the public Prosecutor for the State closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused, under sectioin 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him, that on the relevant day, there was a fair (Mela) of Baba Harnam Singh as his barsi was being celebrated, in the village gurdwara. It was further stated by him that there is smadh of Baba Hargobind in the village. There are two factions in the village, one was led by Ad-dharmis and the other was led by Jats. It was further stated by him that he is Bedi by caste. There were pippal and Palm (Khajoor) trees in the smadh and the same were uprooted by the complainant party. He further stated that he was opposing the members of the complainant party, in their bid to uproot the trees. It was further stated by him that he is Bedi by caste. There were pippal and Palm (Khajoor) trees in the smadh and the same were uprooted by the complainant party. He further stated that he was opposing the members of the complainant party, in their bid to uproot the trees. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused-appellant. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. It was submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the evidence, produced by the prosecution, was not reliable to bring home the guilt to the accused, but the trial court, failed to take into consideration this factum, and, as such, fell into a grave error in recording conviction and awarding sentence. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The prosecution case was unfolded by Avtar Singh, P. W.6, who is none-else than the son of Sansar Singh (deceased ). According to him, on 10-6-1999, at about 11.00 a. m. when he was sitting on the pedestal of marriage palace (Jang-garh) of village Moela Wahidpur, and his father along with other persons was also sitting there, parmeshwar Singh, accused, came with a spear Ex. P1, in his hand and exhorted that all other persons, should leave the spot, as he would kill Sansar Singh. He further deposed that Parmeshwar Singh, accused, then gave a spear blow on the chest of sansar Singh and another spear blow on the ankle joint of the right leg of father. After the receipt of injuries, Sansar Singh, fell down on the cot, on his back. It was further stated by him that when he and Dilbag singh, tried to catch-hold the accused, he gave a spear blow, which hit the left arm of dilbag Singh. Thereafter, he took Sansar singh and Dilbag Singh to Civil Hospital, garhshankar, where Sansar Singh, was declared dead. It was further stated by him that when he and Dilbag singh, tried to catch-hold the accused, he gave a spear blow, which hit the left arm of dilbag Singh. Thereafter, he took Sansar singh and Dilbag Singh to Civil Hospital, garhshankar, where Sansar Singh, was declared dead. The statement of Avtar Singh, p. W.6, was duly corroborated by Dilbag singh, (P. W.7), injured, and; as such, a stamped witness. The ocular evidence was corroborated by Dr. Davinder Kumar, medical Officer, (P. W.1), who conducted the postmortem examination, on the dead body of sansar Singh and found the following injuries on his person :- 1. Horizontal stab wound measuring 7 cm x 2 cm on left side of chest, anterior aspect.5 cm above the left nipple in the third intercostal space. Margins of wound inverted extending downwards and backward, underlying muscles pleura and middle lobe of the left lung cut through and through. Thoracic cavity left side full of blood.2. An incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm transversely placed on medial aspect of lower 1/3rd of right leg 2 cm above the medial mallelous clotted blood was present. Underlying bone was fractured. The cause of death in this case, in the opinion of the Board, was injury No.1, which was sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature. The probable duration, between the injuries and death was within few hours, and between the death and the postmortem, was within 6 hours. Dr. Narinder Kumar, Medical Officer, (P. W.2), who medico-legally examined Dilbag Singh, injured, also furnished corrboration to the ocular version and found the following injuries, on his person :- 1. An incised wound 7.5 cm x 1 cm present on the lower part of left forearm along with medial border. Bleeding was present, tenderness was present, advised x-ray.2.2.5 cm x 1 cm incised wound on the left palm continuous with injury No.1 present on the medial side. Bleeding and tenderness were present. X-ray was advised.3.2.5 cm x 1.5 cm incised wound on interior side of left forearm at lower 1/3rd was present longitudinally. Bleeding and tenderness was present, advised x-ray. The injuries were declared simple in nature, caused by sharp edged weapon. Still further corroboration to the ocular version, was provided through the recovery of spear ex. P1, from the accused, which was used for the commission of crime. Bleeding and tenderness was present, advised x-ray. The injuries were declared simple in nature, caused by sharp edged weapon. Still further corroboration to the ocular version, was provided through the recovery of spear ex. P1, from the accused, which was used for the commission of crime. There was no reason, on the part of Avtar Singh, complainant, and Dilbag Singh, injured, to depose falsely. They had no ill-will, grudge, and enmity against the accused, to make false statements. No doubt, Avtar Singh, complainant, is the son of Sansar Singh, (now deceased ). The mere fact that he is closely related to the deceased, in itself, could not be said to be sufficient to disbelieve his statement. A close relation, would be the last person, to leave the actual culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. The only endeavour of a close relation, is that actual culprit is brought to book. Both Avtar Singh and Dilbag Singh, prosecution witnesses, were thoroughly cross-examined. They stood the test of touch-stone of all probabilities, during the course of cross-examination. The trial Court was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion that the cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy evidence of Avtar singh and Dilbag Singh duly corroborated through the medical evidence, and other pieces of circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to the effect, that no reliable evidence was produced by the prosecution, to bring home the guilt to the accused, therefore, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 10. The first information report, in the instant case, was lodged promptly. The occurrence took place at about 11.00 a. m. on 10-6-1999, in the area of village Moela wahidpur, which is at a distance of 4 kms. , from Police Station Garhshankar. Immediately after the injuries were caused, on the person of Sansar Singh (now deceased) and on the person of Dilbag Singh (injured), they were taken to Civil Hospital, Garhshankar, after arranging a vehicle. Dr. , from Police Station Garhshankar. Immediately after the injuries were caused, on the person of Sansar Singh (now deceased) and on the person of Dilbag Singh (injured), they were taken to Civil Hospital, Garhshankar, after arranging a vehicle. Dr. Narinder kumar, Medical Officer, medico-legally examined Dilbag Singh, injured, on 10-6-1999, at 11.45 a. m. The statement of Avtar Singh was completed at 1.40 p. m. and the FIR was registered at 2.50 p. m. The first concern of avtar Singh, son of Sansar Singh, who was alive, after receipt of injuries to provide him, the best medical aid, so as to ensure that he could be saved, but, unfortunately he could not succeed in his effort. Since the first information was lodged, promptly, the possibility of false implication of the accused, introduction of false witnesses, and concoction of story, were completely ruled out. The principle of law, laid down, in State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 753 : (2002 Cri LJ 1503) (Supreme Court), was to the effect, that prompt lodging of the FIR, and its despatch to the Magistrate strengthened the belief that there was no possibility of either wrong person being impleaded as an accused or the persons who had not seen the occurrence produced as eye-witnesses. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Prompt lodging of the First information Report, also provides strength to the ocular version. 11. It was next submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the motive, set up by the prosecution, for the occurrence, was not proved, and, as such, the trial Court was wrong in recording conviction and awarding sentence. The submission of the counsel for the appellant, in this regard, also does not appear to be correct. Avtar Singh, complainant, P. W.6, in his statement, in clear-cut terms, stated that the motive for the occurrence was that Sarwan Singh and bikkar Singh, who used to cultivate their land, had some dispute with Parmeshwar singh, accused. Sansar Singh had helped sarwan Singh and Bikkar Singh. He also in clear-cut terms, stated that, on account of that grudge, the accused committed the murder of his father. It, therefore, could not be said that the motive set up by the prosecution, for the occurrence, was not proved. Sansar Singh had helped sarwan Singh and Bikkar Singh. He also in clear-cut terms, stated that, on account of that grudge, the accused committed the murder of his father. It, therefore, could not be said that the motive set up by the prosecution, for the occurrence, was not proved. It may be stated here, that there can be an occurrence, even without motive. When the other evidence, produced by the prosecution, is found to be cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy, the existence or non-existence of motive, pales into insignificance. Since the motive, set up by the prosecution was proved, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. It was next submitted by the counsel for the appellant, that the independent witnesses namely Pakhar Singh, Bishan Lal and Santokh Singh were not produced by the prosecution, and, as such, its case became doubtful. The submission of the counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Pakhar Singh, bishan Lal and Santokh Singh were given up by the Public Prosecutor for the State, as having been won over by the accused, vide separate statement dated 24-12-1999. It, therefore, could not be said that the public Prosecutor for the State, did not examine these witnesses intentionally and deliberately. Since the Public Prosecutor for the state, came to the conclusion, that these witnesses had been won over by the accused, and if they were examined, they would not support the prosecution case, he gave them up as won over. The Public Prosecutor for the State, in our opinion, had taken a wise decision, to give them up. The Public prosecutor for the State, is the master of the case. It is for him to decide, as to whether, he wanted to examine a particular witness, or not. However, he is required to exercise the discretion, in a bona fide manner. In the instant case, the discretion was exercised by the Public Prosecutor for the State, in a bona fide manner. There is nothing, on the record, to reveal, that he exercised such a discretion, in an arbitrary, and capricious manner. The other evidence, produced by the prosecution, on scrutiny, has been found to be cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy. In the instant case, the discretion was exercised by the Public Prosecutor for the State, in a bona fide manner. There is nothing, on the record, to reveal, that he exercised such a discretion, in an arbitrary, and capricious manner. The other evidence, produced by the prosecution, on scrutiny, has been found to be cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy. Under these circumstances, the mere fact that Pakhar Singh, Bishan Lal and santokh Singh, independent witnesses, were given up as won over, did not affect the merits of the case. In Masalti V/s. State of Uttar pradesh, AIR 1965 (SC) 202, it was held by a four Judge Bench of the Apex Court that it is, undoubtedly, the duty of the prosecution, to lay before the Court, all material witnesses, available to it, whose evidence is necessary for unfolding its case, but it would be unsound to lay down it, as a general rule, that every witness, must be examined, even though his evidence, may not be very material, or even, if, it is known that he has been won over or terrorized. In Roop Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1996 (1) RCR 146, a Division bench of this Court, held that no adverse inference can be drawn, when the only independent witness, was given up by the prosecution, as won over by the accused. It was further held, in the said authority, that the panch witnesses, being human beings, are quite exposed and vulnerable to human feelings of yielding, browbeating, threats and inducements, and giving up of the public witnesses, as won over, is fully justified, in the present day situation, prevailing in the society. In Karnail Singh V/s. State of Punjab 1983 Cri LJ 1218, it was held by a Division bench of this Court, that where the independent witness, was won over by the accused, and only the officials were examined, as witnesses for the prosecution, who were considered to be not interested persons, their evidence cannot be doubted, on the ground of their official status. Similarly in appa Bai V/s. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696 : (1988 Cri LJ 848), it was held that the prosecution story cannot be thrown out, on the ground, that an independent witnes had not been examined by it. Similarly in appa Bai V/s. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696 : (1988 Cri LJ 848), it was held that the prosecution story cannot be thrown out, on the ground, that an independent witnes had not been examined by it. It was further held that civilized people, are generally insensitive, when a crime is committed, even in their presence, and they withdraw from the victims side, and from the side of the vigilant. They keep themselves away from the courts, unless it is inevitable. Moreover, they think the crime like a civil dispute, between two individuals, and do not involve themselves in it. The principle of law, laid down, in the said authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, the submission of the counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. In the alternative, it was submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the injuries on the person of Sansar Singh (since deceased) and Dilbag Singh, injured were caused by the accused, in private defence of his body. He further submitted that the trial Court, did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, in proper perspective, as a result whereof, it fell into a grave error, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. The submission of the counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. No doubt, Dr. Narinder kumar, Medical Officer, (P. W.2), also medico-legally examined Parmeshwar Singh accused on 10-6-1999 and found the following injuries on his person :- 1. Incised wound 3 x 1.5 cm. transversely present over right eye-brow ,4 cm from midline. Bleeding was present. Upper eyelid and eye brow of right eye swollen. Advised x-ray.2. An oblique wound incised 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm present on frontal region of skull, 4 cm above medial side of right eye brow on right side. Bleeding was present. Advised x-ray.3. An oblique incised wound 2.5 cm x 5 cm present on right frontal region of skull 2.5 cm above injury No.1. Advised x-ray.4. Complained of pain on right eye. Advised Eye-surgeon opinion.5. The lower l/3rd of left forearm swollen and tender, Advised Orth. Opinion.6. Lower half of left leg swollen and tender advised Ortho. Opinion. Injuries Nos.1 to 3 were caused by sharp edged weapon. Advised x-ray.4. Complained of pain on right eye. Advised Eye-surgeon opinion.5. The lower l/3rd of left forearm swollen and tender, Advised Orth. Opinion.6. Lower half of left leg swollen and tender advised Ortho. Opinion. Injuries Nos.1 to 3 were caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury Nos.4 to 6 were caused by blunt weapon. Injury No.6 was declared as grievous. No case was set up by the accused, during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that he received injuries, at the hands of the accused, and, in private defence of his body, he caused injuries on the person of Sansar singh, resulting into his death and on the person of Dilbag Singh, injured. Not only this, even in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he did not set up a plea, that the injuries on the person of Sansar Singh, resulting into his death and on the person of Dilbag Singh, were caused by him, in private defence of his body. On the other hand, a suggestion was put to Avtar Singh, complainant, P. W.6, that his father Sansar Singh was murdered by somebody else, due to his bad antecedents. He has also put a suggestion, that parmeshwar Singh, did not commit the murder of Sansar Singh. Both these suggestions were denied by Avtar Singh, complainant, P. W.6, during the course of cross-examination. Under these circumstances, it could not be said as to in which occurrence, at whose hands, and in which manner, these injuries were received by the accused, on his person. Had he taken the defence, at the first available opportunity, or during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, or in his statement under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, that he caused injuries on the person of Sansar Singh, resulting into his death, and on the person of Dilbag Singh, injured, in private defence of his body, the matter would have been different. In the absence of setting up any such plea of private defence of body, the Court cannot consider the same. Such a plea, could not be said to be available to the counsel for the appellant, at this belated stage. In these circumstances, the submission of the counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. Such a plea, could not be said to be available to the counsel for the appellant, at this belated stage. In these circumstances, the submission of the counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 14 It was next submitted by the counsel for the appellant, that specific plea was set up by the accused, in his statement under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal procedure that on the relevant day, there was a fair (Mela) of Baba Harnam Singh as his barsi was being celebrated in the village gurdwara. He further submitted that the accused also took up the plea, that there is a smadh of Baba Hargobind, in the village. He also submitted that two factions were in existence in the village, one led by addharmis and the other by Jats. He also submitted that the accused is Bedi by caste. He further submitted that the accused stated that there were Pipal and Khajoor trees in the smadh and the same were uprooted by the complainant and he was opposing it. He further submitted that the plea taken up by the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made the prosecution case doubtful. Such a plea was no doubt, taken by the accused, in his statement under Sec.313 of the Code of criminal Procedure, but no evidence was produced by him, to prove the same. In the absence of substantiation of the plea taken up by the accused, in his statement, under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, through any evidence, it could not be said to have been proved. Under these circumstances, no help could be drawn by the counsel for the appellant therefrom. 15. Now coming to the revision petition, filed by Avtar Singh, complainant, that the sentence of fine be imposed, for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of the Indian penal Code, it may be stated here, that the trial Court took this submission of the complainant into consideration, and, ultimately, while relying upon the judgment in case ajaib Singh V/s. State of Punjab, Crl Appeal no.601 of 1999, arising out of SLP Crl 289 of 1999, dated 13-5-1999 came to the conclusion that when a person is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code, ordinarily no fine should be imposed upon him. Under these circumstances, the finding arrived at, by the trial Court, for not imposing the sentence of fine, upon the accused, for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of the Indian penal Code, cannot be said to be perverse. No fault therefore, can be found, with such a finding, recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed, in this regard. 16. No other point, was urged, by the counsel for the parties. 17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld. 18. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 24-2-2000, are upheld. If the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds, shall stand cancelled. 19. The revision petition filed by Avtar singh, is dismissed. 20. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps, in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply with the judgment, promptly. Petition dismissed.