JUDGMENT 1. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 19.2.2003 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Karauli in sessions case no.113/2001 whereby Jagmohan appellant herein, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that a written report was lodged by informant Mangtu Ram (PW-1), resident of Karauli to the S.H.O., PS-Karauli on 8.8.01 wherein he reported that at 10.00 am, he had gone to the market leaving behind his wife Meera who was preparing meals at his house. Suddenly accused-appellant Jagmohan came from behind and inflicted knife blows on her back, hand and abdomen causing her to fall down. She was lifted by Sheela, Raju and Guddi. When the informant came back from the market, the incident was narrated to him by his family members. Deceased Meera was taken to the hospital and there she succumbed to the injuries. 3. On the basis of aforesaid report, a case under Sections 302 Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused-appellant and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, Panch-nama of dead-body and site inspection were prepared. Blood stained soil from the place of occurrence was also seized. Accused-appellant was arrested and on his information, the weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered from his house. Post mortem of the dead body was got done. After collecting the necessary evidence, accused-3 appellant was challenged in the court. In due course, case came up for trial before the trial court. The accused-appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 302 Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. In his explanation, accused appellant stated that he was falsely implicated and he had no knowledge of the incident. However, no witness in defence was examined. 4. Death of Smt.Meera was undeniably homicidal in nature. The prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. In his explanation, accused appellant stated that he was falsely implicated and he had no knowledge of the incident. However, no witness in defence was examined. 4. Death of Smt.Meera was undeniably homicidal in nature. As per post-mortem report Ex.P-10, following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body: (1)Oblique stab wound 3cm X 2cm muscles deep, on left side of sternum (4cm deep) with fracture of 6th rib with bleeding (2)Oblique stab wound 3cm X 2cm muscles deep on left side of lung and heart, deep 6 cm with 3rd rib fracture with bleeding. (3)Oblique stab wound 3cm X 2cm muscles deep on left lung deep with 4th rib fracture with bleeding.4 (4)Oblique stab wound 3cm X 2cm muscles and lung deep on middle of chest between 6th and 7th space 6 cm deep with bleeding. (5)Oblique stab wound 3cm X 2cm bone deep, on back left scapular region in 7th and 8th inter costal space deep 5 cm with fracture of 8th left rib. (6)Oblique stab wound 3cm X 2cm bone deep and up to right lung on back 7th and 8th inter costal space with 8th rib fracture with bleeding deep 5 cm. (7)Oblique stab wound 2cm X 2cm muscle deep, left side of abdoman with bleeding. (8)Oblique stab wound 2cm X 2cm on back up to skin deep. (9)Oblique stab wound 3cm X 2cm muscle deep on left side of abdoman with bleeding. (10)Oblique stab wound 3cm X 2cm muscles deep on left elbow. (11)Oblique stab wound 3cm X 2cm muscles deep on right forearm. (12)Oblique stab wound 3cm X 2cm muscles deep on right forearm. (13)Oblique stab wound 3cm X 2cm muscles deep on left shoulder. (14)Oblique stab wound 2cm X 2cm muscles deep on right shoulder. (15)Oblique stab wound 2cm X 1cm muscles deep on left arm lower ⅓rd part. (16)Oblique stab wound 2cm X 2cm5 muscles deep on left thigh on lower ⅓rd part. (17)Oblique stab wound 2cm X 2cm muscles deep on left arm on ⅓rd part. (14)Oblique stab wound 2cm X 2cm muscles deep on right shoulder. (15)Oblique stab wound 2cm X 1cm muscles deep on left arm lower ⅓rd part. (16)Oblique stab wound 2cm X 2cm5 muscles deep on left thigh on lower ⅓rd part. (17)Oblique stab wound 2cm X 2cm muscles deep on left arm on ⅓rd part. Cause of death of deceased according to Autopsy Surgeon Dr.Nand Lal Sharma (PW-7) was internal and external haemorrhage and shock due to severe nature of injury no.1 to 6 on chest and back of chest leading damage to vital organ left and right lung and heart by sharp weapon. Duration of injury was 4 hours before death. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged conviction on the ground that the learned trial court has placed reliance on the testimony of eye witnesses Ram Deva (PW-2), Sheela (PW-3) and Daulat (PW-4) who are related and interested witnesses and hence their testimony should be discarded being tainted on account of false implication. 6. The learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial court. 7. We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. The testimony of the witnesses who are in relation, is required to be analyzed so as to find out whether it is cogent or credible. But at the same time, relationship alone is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. The foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person unless otherwise their evidence is tainted. 8. In Dalip Singh and ors. Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1953 Supreme Court 364 , it has been laid down as under:- "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1953 Supreme Court 364 , it has been laid down as under:- "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.7 It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be Judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." 9. In Masalti and ors. Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 Supreme Court 202 , this court observed as under: "But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses.... The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct." 10. Bearing these principles in mind, we proceed to examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution including that of the eye witnesses. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct." 10. Bearing these principles in mind, we proceed to examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution including that of the eye witnesses. The occurrence took place at 10.00 am on 8.8.01 and the matter was reported to the police at 10.25 am and thus promptly lodging of FIR to the police by the husband of deceased at the Police Station-Karauli which was about two furlong from the place of occurrence, provides sufficient safeguard against the report containing any tainted version of the incident. The prosecution has examined Ramdeva as PW-2,brother of the first informant Mangtu as an eye witness who was present at his residence at the time of occurrence. As per his deposition,on hearing hue and cry, he along with his wife Sheela came out of their house and saw deceased Meera being chased by the appellant Jagmohan. Meera was crying while running and blood was coming out from her body. Jagmohan caught Meera near the house of Kalyan and inflicted 15-20 knife blows. He also threatened to kill all others if they went near him. Daulat (PW- 4) son of deceased was also present there who had seen the occurrence. Meera was taken to hospital when Jagmohan left the place. She succumbed to injuries there. The testimony of this witness has been corroborated by his wife Sheela (PW-3), and Daulat (PW-4),12 years' old son of deceased. According to Daulat (PW-4), his mother was preparing food at the time when the appellant Jagmohan came with dagger and stabbed his mother, she ran towards the way and she was chased by the appellant and near the house of Kalyan, he caught hold of her mother and inflicted 15-20 blows with dagger, Raju (PW-5) is stated to be present at the time of occurrence but he has been declared hostile as he has not supported the prosecution case. First informant Mangtu (PW-1), husband of the deceased Meera is not an eye witness but he has supported the fact that he came to know of the incident on return as he had gone out for work and then he reported the matter to the police. 11. First informant Mangtu (PW-1), husband of the deceased Meera is not an eye witness but he has supported the fact that he came to know of the incident on return as he had gone out for work and then he reported the matter to the police. 11. The testimony of eye witness of the incident Ramdeva (PW-2), Sheela (PW-3) and Daulat (PW-4) has been assailed on the ground that they are interested witnesses and no independent witness has been examined in this case and, as such, their evidence is tainted and same being suspicious deserves to be discarded. In this regard, it may be noted that the accused-appellant himself belonged to the same family. The house of the appellant was also adjoining to the house of Ramdeva (PW-2) and the deceased as shown at mark "M" and in Ex.P-5, site inspection map. Thus the presence of all the three eye witnesses at the place of occurrence was quite natural. The incident is of 10.00 am in the morning when the appellant approached to the deceased Meera while she was preparing meals at her residence and she was chased from place marked "A" in site inspection map (Ex.P-4) to mark 'X', at a distance of 40 meters near the house of Kalyan and stabbed her there for 15-20 times. The fact that the deceased was stabbed for about 17 times, is further corroborated by Dr.Nandlal (PW-7) who found seventeen stab injuries on chest, lungs, back and also on arms of both the hands which were found to be ante morten and of 4 hours duration from the post mortem. 12. The testimony of the eye witnesses is sought to be assailed on behalf of appellant on the ground that it was not the accused appellant who had caused all these injuries to the deceased but by Mangtu (PW-1) her husband,who had seen his wife in compromising position with one Gopal and the appellant was falsely implicated for the reason that he happened to be the person who had seen both Gopal and deceased Meera in compromising position. This defence has been suggested in the cross-examination of all the above three eye witnesses but they have controverted the same. Ramdeva (PW-2) has even been suggested that after Mangtu had stabbed her wife, knife was snatched by the appellant Jagmohan. This defence has been suggested in the cross-examination of all the above three eye witnesses but they have controverted the same. Ramdeva (PW-2) has even been suggested that after Mangtu had stabbed her wife, knife was snatched by the appellant Jagmohan. But this has not even been stated in the explanation under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code wherein the only explanation put forth is that he was falsely implicated. Thus there is nothing on record to strengthened the defence taken. 13. The eye witness account of the incident is further re-enforced from the fact that the appellant was arrested on the next date of incident i.e. 9.8.01 vide Ex.P-12 and on his information Ex.P-12 given on 9.8.01, recovery of weapon of offence i.e. dagger (knife) was made on the same day at 3.00 p.m. from the house of the accused-appellant which was found to be blood stained. This fact has been proved by the Investigating Officer Nohbar Singh (PW-6) as well as Mangtu (PW-1). Though FSL report could not be obtained regarding chemical examination of the blood found on the dagger (Knife) but prompt recovery of blood stained knife at the instance of accused-appellant further connects him with the crime.It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that accused-appellant was afflicted with occasional bouts of mental disorder and hence his trial for offence stands vitiated. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the learned Trial Judge in the judgment wherein it has been observed that there was no evidence that the appellant had ever had any mental disorder. It was further observed that he was sent for examination regarding mental disorder to SMS Hospital at Jaipur during the trial but he was not found to be afflicted with any such dis-order. Moreover, there has been nothing to infer from the evidence on record that the appellant had any bouts of mental disorder at the time of incident. This has even not been disclosed in the explanation under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, the plea is found to be without any basis. 14. Thus we find that conviction of the appellant is based on cogent, consistent and credible testimony of eye witnesses which further stands corroborated by medical evidence as well as the recovery of weapon of offence. Thus, the plea is found to be without any basis. 14. Thus we find that conviction of the appellant is based on cogent, consistent and credible testimony of eye witnesses which further stands corroborated by medical evidence as well as the recovery of weapon of offence. So there being no infirmity in conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, the same deserves to be confirmed. 15. For these reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed and conviction and sentence is maintained.Appeal dismissed. *******